On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 10:36:45AM -0000, Stefan Bader wrote: > May or may not related Xen messages: > > (XEN) traps.c:2584:d0 Domain attempted WRMSR 00000000c0000408 from > 0xc000040001000000 to 0xc008040001000000. > (XEN) traps.c:2584:d0 Domain attempted WRMSR 00000000c0000409 from > 0xc000010101000000 to 0xc008010101000000. > (XEN) traps.c:2584:d0 Domain attempted WRMSR 00000000c0010004 from > 0x0000fffcaf83dad0 to 0x0000fffcaf83252f. > (XEN) traps.c:2584:d0 Domain attempted WRMSR 00000000c0000408 from > 0xc000040001000000 to 0xc008040001000000. > (XEN) traps.c:2584:d0 Domain attempted WRMSR 00000000c0000409 from > 0xc000010101000000 to 0xc008010101000000. > (XEN) traps.c:2584:d0 Domain attempted WRMSR 00000000c0000408 from > 0xc000040001000000 to 0xc008040001000000. > (XEN) traps.c:2584:d0 Domain attempted WRMSR 00000000c0000409 from > 0xc000010101000000 to 0xc008010101000000. > (XEN) traps.c:2584:d0 Domain attempted WRMSR 00000000c0000408 from > 0xc000040001000000 to 0xc008040001000000. > (XEN) traps.c:2584:d0 Domain attempted WRMSR 00000000c0000409 from > 0xc000010101000000 to 0xc008010101000000. > (XEN) traps.c:2584:d0 Domain attempted WRMSR 0000000000000413 from > 0xc00c0ffe01000000 to 0xc0080ffe01000000. > (XEN) traps.c:2584:d0 Domain attempted WRMSR 00000000c0000408 from > 0xc000050101000000 to 0xc008050101000000. > (XEN) traps.c:2584:d0 Domain attempted WRMSR 00000000c0000409 from > 0xc00001c101000000 to 0xc00801c101000000. > (XEN) traps.c:2584:d0 Domain attempted WRMSR 0000000000000413 from > 0xc00c0ffe01000000 to 0xc0080ffe01000000. > (XEN) traps.c:2584:d0 Domain attempted WRMSR 00000000c0000408 from > 0xc000050101000000 to 0xc008050101000000. > (XEN) traps.c:2584:d0 Domain attempted WRMSR 00000000c0000409 from > 0xc00001c101000000 to 0xc00801c101000000. > (XEN) traps.c:2584:d0 Domain attempted WRMSR 0000000000000413 from > 0xc00c0ffe01000000 to 0xc0080ffe01000000. > (XEN) traps.c:2584:d0 Domain attempted WRMSR 00000000c0000408 from > 0xc000050101000000 to 0xc008050101000000. > (XEN) traps.c:2584:d0 Domain attempted WRMSR 00000000c0000409 from > 0xc00001c101000000 to 0xc00801c101000000. > (XEN) traps.c:2584:d0 Domain attempted WRMSR 0000000000000413 from > 0xc00c0ffe01000000 to 0xc0080ffe01000000. > (XEN) traps.c:2584:d0 Domain attempted WRMSR 00000000c0000408 from > 0xc000050101000000 to 0xc008050101000000. > (XEN) traps.c:2584:d0 Domain attempted WRMSR 00000000c0000409 from > 0xc00001c101000000 to 0xc00801c101000000. > (XEN) mm.c:874: d0: Forcing read-only access to MFN e0002 > (XEN) Fail change to ondemand governor > (XEN) Fail change to ondemand governor > (XEN) Fail change to ondemand governor > (XEN) Fail change to ondemand governor > (XEN) Fail change to ondemand governor > (XEN) Fail change to ondemand governor
Those look suspicious and I have to say I think I saw those too on one of my machines - but I can't recall whether the xenpm worked afterwards. > (XEN) traps.c:2584:d0 Domain attempted WRMSR 00000000c0010020 from > 0x0000000000000000 to 0xffff880003cb9c00. > (XEN) traps.c:2584:d0 Domain attempted WRMSR 00000000c0010020 from > 0x0000000000000000 to 0xffff880003cb9c00. > (XEN) traps.c:2584:d0 Domain attempted WRMSR 00000000c0010020 from > 0x0000000000000000 to 0xffff880003cb9c00. > (XEN) traps.c:2584:d0 Domain attempted WRMSR 00000000c0010020 from > 0x0000000000000000 to 0xffff880003cb9c00. > (XEN) traps.c:2584:d0 Domain attempted WRMSR 00000000c0010020 from > 0x0000000000000000 to 0xffff880003cb9c00. > (XEN) traps.c:2584:d0 Domain attempted WRMSR 00000000c0010020 from > 0x0000000000000000 to 0xffff880003cb9c00. > (XEN) traps.c:2584:d0 Domain attempted WRMSR 00000000c0010020 from > 0x0000000000000000 to 0xffff880003cb9c00. > (XEN) traps.c:2584:d0 Domain attempted WRMSR 00000000c0010020 from > 0x0000000000000000 to 0xffff880003cb9c00. > > -- > You received this bug notification because you are subscribed to the bug > report. > https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1078619 > > Title: > [raring] xen power managment (freq scaling) fails on linux 3.7 > > Status in “linux” package in Ubuntu: > Triaged > > Bug description: > While testing the current 3.7.0-0.5 kernel together with the Xen 4.2 > package I noticed that "xenpm get-cpufreq-para 0" would weirdly report > only one available frequency. Booting back into kernel 3.5.0-18.29 > with the same userspace shows the expected output: > > cpu id : 0 > affected_cpus : 0 > cpuinfo frequency : max [2000000] min [800000] cur [800000] > scaling_driver : > scaling_avail_gov : userspace performance powersave ondemand > current_governor : ondemand > ondemand specific : > sampling_rate : max [10000000] min [10000] cur [20000] > up_threshold : 80 > scaling_avail_freq : 2000000 1500000 1200000 1000000 *800000 > scaling frequency : max [2000000] min [800000] cur [800000] > > Bad output on 3.7: > > cpu id : 0 > affected_cpus : 0 > cpuinfo frequency : max [1600000] min [1600000] cur [1600000] > scaling_driver : > scaling_avail_gov : userspace performance powersave ondemand > current_governor : ondemand > ondemand specific : > sampling_rate : max [10000000] min [10000] cur [20000] > up_threshold : 80 > scaling_avail_freq : *1600000 *1600000 *1600000 *1600000 *1600000 > scaling frequency : max [1600000] min [1600000] cur [1600000] > > To manage notifications about this bug go to: > https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/1078619/+subscriptions -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1078619 Title: [raring] xen power managment (freq scaling) fails on linux 3.7 To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/1078619/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
