kernel-packages team mailing list archive

[Jeff Lane <jeffrey.lane@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I'm going to mark this as invalid.  Narinder discovered the actual issue
appears to be that HP had installed an incorrect processor on this
machine.  After they swapped out the proc for the correct one, the issue
went away.

** Changed in: linux (Ubuntu)
       Status: Incomplete => Invalid

-- 
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Kernel
Packages, which is subscribed to linux in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1248621

Title:
  Medium Errors when running cpufreq test in fwts

Status in “linux” package in Ubuntu:
  Invalid

Bug description:
  While running the cpufreq test on a server, we encountered the
  following (Here's the full log)

  Results generated by fwts: Version V13.09.01 (2013-09-17 07:41:02).

  Some of this work - Copyright (c) 1999 - 2010, Intel Corp. All rights reserved.
  Some of this work - Copyright (c) 2010 - 2013, Canonical.

  This test run on 05/11/13 at 16:05:51 on host Linux ubuntuc1n1 3.11.0-12-generic
  #19-Ubuntu SMP Wed Oct 9 16:20:46 UTC 2013 x86_64.

  Command: "fwts -q --stdout-summary -r /root/.checkbox/scaling_test.log cpufreq".
  Running tests: cpufreq.

  cpufreq: CPU frequency scaling tests.
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Test 1 of 1: CPU P-State Checks.
  For each processor in the system, this test steps through the various frequency
  states (P-states) that the BIOS advertises for the processor. For each processor
  /frequency combination, a quick performance value is measured. The test then
  validates that:
    1. Each processor has the same number of frequency states.
    2. Higher advertised frequencies have a higher performance.
    3. No duplicate frequency values are reported by the BIOS.
    4. BIOS doing Sw_All P-state coordination across cores.
    5. BIOS doing Sw_Any P-state coordination across cores.

  CPU 0: 14 CPU frequency steps supported.
   Frequency | Relative Speed | Bogo loops
  -----------+----------------+-----------
    2.45 GHz |     100.0 %    |    155783
    2.45 GHz |      92.3 %    |    143795
    2.35 GHz |      92.3 %    |    143798
    2.25 GHz |      92.3 %    |    143796
    2.15 GHz |      92.3 %    |    143797
    2.05 GHz |      92.3 %    |    143794
    1.95 GHz |      92.3 %    |    143815
    1.85 GHz |      92.3 %    |    143710
    1.75 GHz |      92.3 %    |    143789
    1.65 GHz |      92.3 %    |    143795
    1500 MHz |      92.3 %    |    143798
    1400 MHz |      92.3 %    |    143799
    1300 MHz |      92.3 %    |    143796
    1200 MHz |      92.3 %    |    143797

  FAILED [MEDIUM] CPUFreqSlowerOnCPU: Test 1, Supposedly higher frequency 1300 MHz
  is slower (143796 bogo loops) than frequency 1300 MHz (143797 bogo loops) on CPU
  0.
  FAILED [MEDIUM] CPUFreqSlowerOnCPU: Test 1, Supposedly higher frequency 1500 MHz
  is slower (143798 bogo loops) than frequency 1500 MHz (143799 bogo loops) on CPU
  0.
  FAILED [MEDIUM] CPUFreqSlowerOnCPU: Test 1, Supposedly higher frequency 1.65 GHz
  is slower (143795 bogo loops) than frequency 1.65 GHz (143798 bogo loops) on CPU
  0.
  FAILED [MEDIUM] CPUFreqSlowerOnCPU: Test 1, Supposedly higher frequency 1.75 GHz
  is slower (143789 bogo loops) than frequency 1.75 GHz (143795 bogo loops) on CPU
  0.
  FAILED [MEDIUM] CPUFreqSlowerOnCPU: Test 1, Supposedly higher frequency 1.85 GHz
  is slower (143710 bogo loops) than frequency 1.85 GHz (143789 bogo loops) on CPU
  0.
  FAILED [MEDIUM] CPUFreqSlowerOnCPU: Test 1, Supposedly higher frequency 2.05 GHz
  is slower (143794 bogo loops) than frequency 2.05 GHz (143815 bogo loops) on CPU
  0.
  FAILED [MEDIUM] CPUFreqSlowerOnCPU: Test 1, Supposedly higher frequency 2.25 GHz
  is slower (143796 bogo loops) than frequency 2.25 GHz (143797 bogo loops) on CPU
  0.
  FAILED [MEDIUM] CPUFreqSlowerOnCPU: Test 1, Supposedly higher frequency 2.45 GHz
  is slower (143795 bogo loops) than frequency 2.45 GHz (143798 bogo loops) on CPU
  0.
  Frequency scaling not supported.

  ================================================================================
  0 passed, 8 failed, 0 warnings, 0 aborted, 0 skipped, 0 info only.
  ================================================================================

  
  0 passed, 8 failed, 0 warnings, 0 aborted, 0 skipped, 0 info only.

  Test Failure Summary
  ================================================================================

  Critical failures: NONE

  High failures: NONE

  Medium failures: 8
   cpufreq: Supposedly higher frequency   1300 MHz is slower (143796 bogo loops) than frequency   1300 MHz (143797 bogo loops) on CPU 0.
   cpufreq: Supposedly higher frequency   1500 MHz is slower (143798 bogo loops) than frequency   1500 MHz (143799 bogo loops) on CPU 0.
   cpufreq: Supposedly higher frequency   1.65 GHz is slower (143795 bogo loops) than frequency   1.65 GHz (143798 bogo loops) on CPU 0.
   cpufreq: Supposedly higher frequency   1.75 GHz is slower (143789 bogo loops) than frequency   1.75 GHz (143795 bogo loops) on CPU 0.
   cpufreq: Supposedly higher frequency   1.85 GHz is slower (143710 bogo loops) than frequency   1.85 GHz (143789 bogo loops) on CPU 0.
   cpufreq: Supposedly higher frequency   2.05 GHz is slower (143794 bogo loops) than frequency   2.05 GHz (143815 bogo loops) on CPU 0.
   cpufreq: Supposedly higher frequency   2.25 GHz is slower (143796 bogo loops) than frequency   2.25 GHz (143797 bogo loops) on CPU 0.
   cpufreq: Supposedly higher frequency   2.45 GHz is slower (143795 bogo loops) than frequency   2.45 GHz (143798 bogo loops) on CPU 0.

  Low failures: NONE

  Other failures: NONE

  Test           |Pass |Fail |Abort|Warn |Skip |Info |
  ---------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
  cpufreq        |     |    8|     |     |     |     |
  ---------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
  Total:         |    0|    8|    0|    0|    0|    0|
  ---------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+

  This results in a few questions...

  First, what exactly is causing the failures to trigger?
  Second, why does it say "Frequency scaling not supported." at the end the run messages? It appears that the cpu is being scaled up and down to various speeds, so that output is confusing and we need some clarification.

  Can you please take a look and give us some insite for the two
  questions above?

  Finally, is this a failure we should be concerned about?

To manage notifications about this bug go to:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/1248621/+subscriptions