Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20181012182630.GA13352@ssarabia-MOBL7.amr.corp.intel.com> <20181012222743.GA14100@ssarabia-MOBL7.amr.corp.intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <20181012222743.GA14100@ssarabia-MOBL7.amr.corp.intel.com>
From:   Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>
Date:   Fri, 12 Oct 2018 19:03:41 -0400
Message-ID: <CAJvTdKmQUomRnZnPD3O0-Wq0Tp+9PKewBEqQnn4OUg=0Fpzh5w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: turbostat-17.06.23 floating point exception
To:     solio.sarabia@intel.com
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Linux PM list <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
        "Brown, Len" <len.brown@intel.com>, shiny.sebastian@intel.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

> Why would the cpu topology report 0 cpus?  I added a debug entry to
> cpu_usage_stat and /proc/stat showed it as an extra column.  Then
> fscanf parsing in for_all_cpus() failed, causing the SIGFPE.
>
> This is not an issue. Thanks.

Yes, it is true that turbostat doesn't check for systems with 0 cpus.
I'm curious how you provoked the kernel to claim that.  If it is
something others might do, we can have check for it and gracefully
exit.

thanks,
-Len


-- 
Len Brown, Intel Open Source Technology Center