Re: [PATCH] ACPI: Check _PSS invalidation when BIOS report _PSS with all 0x80000000

[Woody Suwalski]

Len Brown wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Nov 2008, Youquan,Song wrote:
>
>   
> > On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 03:08:39PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >     
> > > On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 19:08:36 -0800 (PST)
> > > youquan_song@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > >
> > >       
> > > > Subject: Check _PSS invalidation when BIOS report _PSS with 0x80000000
> > > >
> > > > When cpu frequencey scaling disable,some BIOS report _PSS with all
> > > > 0x80000000.
> > > > If kernel treat this case as valid, the kernel will boot crash when load
> > > > cpufreq govenors.
> > > >
> > > > So in order to cover more buggy BIOSs, the patch just check _PSS core
> > > > frequencey invalidtion.
> > > >
> > > >         
> > > It's unclear how many machines this will affect, and what the effects
> > > of not having the patch are upon those machines.  That is useful
> > > information for people who are deciding whcih kernel versions this
> > > patch should be merged into.
> > >       
> > I meet 2 machines that if the P-states is disabled in BIOS, the kernel
> > will boot crash at loading cpufreq_userspace governor because kernel
> > consider that P-states validate. I know there are some other machines
> > also exist this bug.
> >     
>
> What does _PPC say when P-states are disabled on these machines?
> If it is disabling the _PSS, maybe we should not be looking at the _PSS?
>
> This would be a good patch if 0x80000000 were actually documented
> in the ACPI spec as disabling P-states, but it isn't.
>
> Can you open a bugzilla and attach the acpidump output for
> the two failing machines?  Are those machines shipped with
> P-states enabled by default, or disabled by default?
>
> Also, how, exactly, do we crash when we see these values?
>
>   
> > > Do you think this fix is needed in 2.6.28?  2.6.27.x?  2.6.26.x?  etc?
> > >
> > >       
> > I know that the bug exists in kernel as old as 2.6.18 and also exits on
> > 2.6.28, 2.6.27 etc. 
> >     
>
> So we've been exposed to this BIOS bug for more than 10 releases
> and the world has not ended.  Unless we're about to be exposed to
> a raft of new machines with this BIOS issue, and they have P-states
> disabled by default, I'd say this workaround in not urgent.
>
>   
On Dell Latitude E4300 and E4600 I had to add processor.nocst=1
Otherwise system will become disfunctional after modprobing processor, 
typically on start of X or on exit from X...
Do not have any of the systems on hand, but if useful can provide dmesg 
dump...
I have not tried with 2.6.28 or earlier, so can not say if this is a 
regression or not.

Woody

--
Woody Suwalski, Xandros, Ottawa, Canada, 1-613-842-3498 x414

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/