Public bug reported:
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?
** Affects: linux (Ubuntu)
Importance: Undecided
Assignee: Firmware Testing Team (firmware-testing-team)
Status: New
--
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:
New
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
--
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kernel-packages
Post to : kernel-packages@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kernel-packages
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
