Re: Pressing the power button causes the device to freeze completely (schedutil involved)
From: Evgeny Sagatov
Date: Thu Apr 30 2026 - 19:18:41 EST
Rafael,
I'm leaving on vacation today. I'll be able to conduct new checks
starting May 17th.
Thanks for helping with resolving the issue!
чт, 30 апр. 2026 г. в 17:42, Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@xxxxxxxxxx>:
>
> On Thursday, April 30, 2026 3:57:41 PM CEST Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 30, 2026 at 1:41 PM Evgeny Sagatov <evgeny.sagatov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > I noticed that for powersave mode, I'm getting the following values:
> >
> > I guess you mean with the powersave governor.
> >
> > > cat /proc/cpuinfo | grep MHz
> > > cpu MHz : 2798.689
> > > cpu MHz : 1999.659
> > > cpu MHz : 1999.797
> > > cpu MHz : 2741.103
> > > Also, there's now no difference in the single-core benchmark between
> > > schedutil, ondemand, powersave and performance modes. The benchmark
> > > always gives a very high result.
> > > This wasn't the case before; the modes had different performance levels.
> >
> > I would expect schedutil, ondemand and performance to give similar
> > scores, but for powersave I would expect the score to be lower.
> >
> > With the same patch applied, can you please switch over to powersave,
> > reset the stats and then capture the output of
> >
> > grep -r . /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpufreq/
> >
> > Also, I'd still like to see the output of
> >
> > grep . /sys/firmware/acpi/interrupts/sci*
>
> Additionally, please remove all of the debug patches sent so far, apply
> the one below and send a dmesg boot log.
>
> I want to check if all of the CPUs use the same control values when
> they write to the frequency scaling control register.
>
> ---
> drivers/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c | 12 +++++++++---
> drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 1 +
> 2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c
> @@ -887,9 +887,14 @@ static int acpi_cpufreq_cpu_init(struct
> * unknown and not detectable via IO ports.
> */
> policy->cur = acpi_cpufreq_guess_freq(data, policy->cpu);
> + pr_info("CPU%u: Using I/O space for frequency scaling\n", cpu);
> + pr_info("CPU%u: frequency scaling control address: %llu, bit width: %u\n",
> + cpu, perf->control_register.address,
> + perf->control_register.bit_width);
> break;
> case ACPI_ADR_SPACE_FIXED_HARDWARE:
> acpi_cpufreq_driver.get = get_cur_freq_on_cpu;
> + pr_info("CPU%u: Using FFH for frequency scaling\n", cpu);
> break;
> default:
> break;
> @@ -898,13 +903,14 @@ static int acpi_cpufreq_cpu_init(struct
> /* notify BIOS that we exist */
> acpi_processor_notify_smm(THIS_MODULE);
>
> - pr_debug("CPU%u - ACPI performance management activated.\n", cpu);
> + pr_info("CPU%u - ACPI performance management activated.\n", cpu);
> for (i = 0; i < perf->state_count; i++)
> - pr_debug(" %cP%d: %d MHz, %d mW, %d uS\n",
> + pr_info(" %cP%d: %d MHz, %d mW, %d uS, %u\n",
> (i == perf->state ? '*' : ' '), i,
> (u32) perf->states[i].core_frequency,
> (u32) perf->states[i].power,
> - (u32) perf->states[i].transition_latency);
> + (u32) perf->states[i].transition_latency,
> + (u32) perf->states[i].control);
>
> /*
> * the first call to ->target() should result in us actually
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> @@ -473,6 +473,7 @@ void cpufreq_enable_fast_switch(struct c
> if (cpufreq_fast_switch_count >= 0) {
> cpufreq_fast_switch_count++;
> policy->fast_switch_enabled = true;
> + pr_info("CPU%u: Fast frequency switching enabled\n", policy->cpu);
> } else {
> pr_warn("CPU%u: Fast frequency switching not enabled\n",
> policy->cpu);
>
>
>
>