Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 17:36:33 -0300 From: "Renato Botelho" <rbgarga@gmail.com> To: "John Baldwin" <jhb@freebsd.org> Cc: cvs-src@freebsd.org, Dimitry Andric <dimitry@andric.com>, src-committers@freebsd.org, cvs-all@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/i386/cpufreq est.c Message-ID: <747dc8f30808251336h59011fafv7d6a92b705588db0@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <48B31456.5030009@andric.com> References: <200808231253.m7NCrkLp093604@repoman.freebsd.org> <747dc8f30808250629h73676fd8m71f0d6cbc0e035e2@mail.gmail.com> <747dc8f30808251227v286ab480mea5b0d7dff0311fa@mail.gmail.com> <48B31456.5030009@andric.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 5:21 PM, Dimitry Andric <dimitry@andric.com> wrote: > On 2008-08-25 21:27, Renato Botelho wrote: > > cpu0: <ACPI CPU> on acpi0 > > est0: <Enhanced SpeedStep Frequency Control> on cpu0 > > est0: Guessed bus clock (high) of 200 MHz > > > > Fatal trap 18: integer divide fault while in kernel mode > > cpuid = 0; acpi id = 00 > > ... > > panic: integer divide fault > > Unfortunately, there are CPU models around that have MSR_PERF_STATUS > bits that are inconsistent, e.g: > > - The low and high multipliers (bits 31:24 and 15:8) are equal, so if > you subtract them and then divide... boom :) > - Either the low or high multipliers (or both) are zero, which is also > not good, at least not with the current code. > > As an example, I originally added some multiplier sanity checks here: > http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/sys/arch/i386/i386/est.c#rev1.27 > > John, Is this information good enough or you still need I collect some data? I'm just asking because i don't have a serial console at this machine and it's not so easy to get this kind of data. Thanks -- Renato Botelho
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?747dc8f30808251336h59011fafv7d6a92b705588db0>