hwpstate_intel i386 build workaround [Was: Re: git: 7b26353a59d6 - main - hwpstate_intel: Disable package control on hybrid CPU]
- Reply: Adrian Chadd : "Re: hwpstate_intel i386 build workaround [Was: Re: git: 7b26353a59d6 - main - hwpstate_intel: Disable package control on hybrid CPU]"
- In reply to: ShengYi Hung : "git: 7b26353a59d6 - main - hwpstate_intel: Disable package control on hybrid CPU"
- Go to: [ bottom of page ] [ top of archives ] [ this month ]
Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2026 14:18:38 UTC
On 2026-06-02 08:42, ShengYi Hung wrote:
> The branch main has been updated by aokblast:
>
> URL: https://cgit.FreeBSD.org/src/commit/?id=7b26353a59d66dc1bc611fd042a49b9e3bd13699
>
> commit 7b26353a59d66dc1bc611fd042a49b9e3bd13699
> Author: ShengYi Hung <aokblast@FreeBSD.org>
> AuthorDate: 2026-06-01 09:46:37 +0000
> Commit: ShengYi Hung <aokblast@FreeBSD.org>
> CommitDate: 2026-06-02 06:41:41 +0000
>
> hwpstate_intel: Disable package control on hybrid CPU
>
> In package control mode, the performance of all cores depends on the
> most recent value written to the request field. If the last write comes
> from an E-core, all cores are forced to align with the E-core
> performance level, resulting in significant performance degradation.
> Therefore, package control is disabled on hybrid-core systems.
>
> Reviewed by: olce
> MFC after: 2 weeks
> Sponsored by: The FreeBSD Foundation
> Sponsored by: Framework Computer Inc
> Differential Revision: https://reviews.freebsd.org/D57377
> ---
> sys/x86/cpufreq/hwpstate_intel.c | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++
In lieu of a proper fix, due to lacking skills, I'm working around i386
incompatibility with this diff:
diff --git a/sys/x86/cpufreq/hwpstate_intel.c
b/sys/x86/cpufreq/hwpstate_intel.c
index db8600d7b89a..b9b68f1b14d0 100644
--- a/sys/x86/cpufreq/hwpstate_intel.c
+++ b/sys/x86/cpufreq/hwpstate_intel.c
@@ -321,6 +321,7 @@ sysctl_epp_select(SYSCTL_HANDLER_ARGS)
return (ret);
}
+#ifndef __i386__
static void
intel_hwpstate_hybrid_cb(void *ctx)
{
@@ -328,11 +329,14 @@ intel_hwpstate_hybrid_cb(void *ctx)
atomic_add_32(small_cores, PCPU_GET(small_core));
}
+#endif
void
intel_hwpstate_identify(driver_t *driver, device_t parent)
{
+#ifndef __i386__
uint32_t small_cores = 0;
+#endif
if (device_find_child(parent, "hwpstate_intel",
DEVICE_UNIT_ANY) != NULL)
return;
@@ -353,6 +357,7 @@ intel_hwpstate_identify(driver_t *driver, device_t
parent)
if ((cpu_power_eax & CPUTPM1_HWP) == 0)
return;
+#ifndef __i386__
/*
* On hybrid-core systems, package-level control cannot be used.
* It may cause all cores to run at the E-core frequency because
@@ -363,6 +368,7 @@ intel_hwpstate_identify(driver_t *driver, device_t
parent)
intel_hwpstate_hybrid_cb, smp_no_rendezvous_barrier,
&small_cores);
if (small_cores > 0 && small_cores < mp_ncores)
hwpstate_pkg_ctrl_enable = false;
+#endif
if (BUS_ADD_CHILD(parent, 10, "hwpstate_intel",
device_get_unit(parent))
== NULL)
I know i386 is not supported anymore.
Just in case anybody else wants to keep i368-stable/15 for bhyve guests
for example, where cpufreq(4) isn't attaching anyways.
Thanks,
-harry