El 28/10/2014 11:50, "Paul Gideon Dann" <pdgiddie@gmail.com> escribió:
Question: how do microcode updates interact with waking the machine from sleep? I've added the microcode update as an initrd, and it updated fine when I rebooted. However, having since suspended and woken my machine, the kernel log shows a second load of the microcode:
[ 0.000000] CPU0 microcode updated early to revision 0x1c, date = 2014-07-03 [ 0.090603] CPU1 microcode updated early to revision 0x1c, date = 2014-07-03 [ 0.111347] CPU2 microcode updated early to revision 0x1c, date = 2014-07-03 [ 0.132113] CPU3 microcode updated early to revision 0x1c, date = 2014-07-03 [ 0.334871] microcode: CPU0 sig=0x306c3, pf=0x2, revision=0x1c [ 0.334881] microcode: CPU1 sig=0x306c3, pf=0x2, revision=0x1c [ 0.334886] microcode: CPU2 sig=0x306c3, pf=0x2, revision=0x1c [ 0.334892] microcode: CPU3 sig=0x306c3, pf=0x2, revision=0x1c [ 0.334931] microcode: Microcode Update Driver: v2.00 < tigran@aivazian.fsnet.co.uk>, Peter Oruba [ 7802.735878] CPU1 microcode updated early to revision 0x1c, date = 2014-07-03 [ 7802.749970] CPU2 microcode updated early to revision 0x1c, date = 2014-07-03 [ 7802.764074] CPU3 microcode updated early to revision 0x1c, date = 2014-07-03
Note that CPU0 doesn't seem to have been updated. Suspending and resuming again yields a further update to CPUs 1,2,3, but not 0. I'm also getting sporadic failures to launch certain binaries, with an "illegal hardware instruction" error.
I'm on kernel 3.17.1-1, which may have something to do with it. I'm aware that 3.17.2 will behave differently with regard to loading microcode. So
is
this expected behaviour?
Any information / ideas / theories?
Paul
Hi, Not sure if related but I've posted in the forums [1] about the problems I'm having since the 3.17.1-1 update when resuming my system from disk (I preferred to do so rather than spamming hete in order to know whether other users were experiencing the same or not). In a nutshell, I'm experiencing random reboots when resuming from disk. Again, I'm not sure whether this is also due to how ucodes are loaded now, but it looks quite suspicious to me. Cheers, Eugenio [1] https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=189014