Hi Jan, On Fri, Nov 05, 2021 at 01:50:04PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 26.07.2021 14:33, James Dingwall wrote: > > Hi Jan, > > > > Thank you for taking the time to reply. > > > > On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 12:59:11PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote: > >> On 21.07.2021 11:29, James Dingwall wrote: > >>> We have a system which intermittently starts up and reports an incorrect > >>> cpu frequency: > >>> > >>> # grep -i mhz /var/log/kern.log > >>> Jul 14 17:47:47 dom0 kernel: [ 0.000475] tsc: Detected 2194.846 MHz > >>> processor > >>> Jul 14 22:03:37 dom0 kernel: [ 0.000476] tsc: Detected 2194.878 MHz > >>> processor > >>> Jul 14 23:05:13 dom0 kernel: [ 0.000478] tsc: Detected 2194.848 MHz > >>> processor > >>> Jul 14 23:20:47 dom0 kernel: [ 0.000474] tsc: Detected 2194.856 MHz > >>> processor > >>> Jul 14 23:57:39 dom0 kernel: [ 0.000476] tsc: Detected 2194.906 MHz > >>> processor > >>> Jul 15 01:04:09 dom0 kernel: [ 0.000476] tsc: Detected 2194.858 MHz > >>> processor > >>> Jul 15 01:27:15 dom0 kernel: [ 0.000482] tsc: Detected 2194.870 MHz > >>> processor > >>> Jul 15 02:00:13 dom0 kernel: [ 0.000481] tsc: Detected 2194.924 MHz > >>> processor > >>> Jul 15 03:09:23 dom0 kernel: [ 0.000475] tsc: Detected 2194.892 MHz > >>> processor > >>> Jul 15 03:32:50 dom0 kernel: [ 0.000482] tsc: Detected 2194.856 MHz > >>> processor > >>> Jul 15 04:05:27 dom0 kernel: [ 0.000480] tsc: Detected 2194.886 MHz > >>> processor > >>> Jul 15 05:00:38 dom0 kernel: [ 0.000473] tsc: Detected 2194.914 MHz > >>> processor > >>> Jul 15 05:59:33 dom0 kernel: [ 0.000480] tsc: Detected 2194.924 MHz > >>> processor > >>> Jul 15 06:22:31 dom0 kernel: [ 0.000474] tsc: Detected 2194.910 MHz > >>> processor > >>> Jul 15 17:52:57 dom0 kernel: [ 0.000474] tsc: Detected 2194.854 MHz > >>> processor > >>> Jul 15 18:51:36 dom0 kernel: [ 0.000474] tsc: Detected 2194.900 MHz > >>> processor > >>> Jul 15 19:07:26 dom0 kernel: [ 0.000478] tsc: Detected 2194.902 MHz > >>> processor > >>> Jul 15 19:43:56 dom0 kernel: [ 0.000154] tsc: Detected 6895.384 MHz > >>> processor > >> > >> Well, this is output from Dom0. What we'd need to see (in addition) > >> is the corresponding hypervisor log at maximum verbosity (loglvl=all). > > > > This was just to illustrate that the dom0 usually reports the correct > > speed. I'll update the xen boot options with loglvl=all and try to collect > > the boot messages for each case. > > > >> > >>> The xen 's' debug output: > >>> > >>> (XEN) TSC marked as reliable, warp = 0 (count=4) > >>> (XEN) dom1: mode=0,ofs=0x1d1ac8bf8e,khz=6895385,inc=1 > >>> (XEN) dom2: mode=0,ofs=0x28bc24c746,khz=6895385,inc=1 > >>> (XEN) dom3: mode=0,ofs=0x345696b138,khz=6895385,inc=1 > >>> (XEN) dom4: mode=0,ofs=0x34f2635f31,khz=6895385,inc=1 > >>> (XEN) dom5: mode=0,ofs=0x3581618a7d,khz=6895385,inc=1 > >>> (XEN) dom6: mode=0,ofs=0x3627ca68b2,khz=6895385,inc=1 > >>> (XEN) dom7: mode=0,ofs=0x36dd491860,khz=6895385,inc=1 > >>> (XEN) dom8: mode=0,ofs=0x377a57ea1a,khz=6895385,inc=1 > >>> (XEN) dom9: mode=0,ofs=0x381eb175ce,khz=6895385,inc=1 > >>> (XEN) dom10: mode=0,ofs=0x38cab2e260,khz=6895385,inc=1 > >>> (XEN) dom11: mode=0,ofs=0x397fc47387,khz=6895385,inc=1 > >>> (XEN) dom12: mode=0,ofs=0x3a552762a0,khz=6895385,inc=1 > >>> > >>> A processor from /proc/cpuinfo in dom0: > >>> > >>> processor : 3 > >>> vendor_id : GenuineIntel > >>> cpu family : 6 > >>> model : 85 > >>> model name : Intel(R) Xeon(R) D-2123IT CPU @ 2.20GHz > >>> stepping : 4 > >>> microcode : 0x2000065 > >>> cpu MHz : 6895.384 > >>> [...] > >>> > >>> Xen has been built at 310ab79875cb705cc2c7daddff412b5a4899f8c9 from the > >>> stable-4.12 branch. > >> > >> While this contradicts the title, both 4.11 and 4.12 are out of general > >> support. Hence it would be more helpful if you could obtain respective > >> logs with a more modern version of Xen - ideally from the master branch, > >> or else the most recent stable one (4.15). Provided of course the issue > >> continues to exist there in the first place. > > > > That was my error, I meant the stable-4.11 branch. We have a development > > environment based around 4.14.2 which I can test. > > I'm sorry to ask, but have you got around to actually doing that? Or > else is resolving this no longer of interest?
We have recorded a couple of other occurences on 4.11 but it is happening so infrequently (probably once every few hundred boots) that further investigation is low on a long list of tasks. We are also moving to 4.14.3 and so far have no occurences with that version. Thanks, James
