Intel CPU: Spamming of 'line 105: echo: write error: Device or resource busy

[lamyergeier]

Thank you for the PR, since these changes seem strictly AMD oriented, I've asked on auto-cpufreq discord channel if someone could test these changes.

Originally posted by @AdnanHodzic in #627 (comment)

I am still facing the issue but in Intel CPU.

Refer: [Spamming of 'line 105: echo: write error: Device or resource busy' in journal · Issue #563 · AdnanHodzic/auto-cpufreq](#563)

$ systemctl status -o short-iso --full  auto-cpufreq
● auto-cpufreq.service - auto-cpufreq - Automatic CPU speed & power optimizer for Linux
     Loaded: loaded (/etc/systemd/system/auto-cpufreq.service; disabled; preset: disabled)
    Drop-In: /usr/lib/systemd/system/service.d
             └─10-timeout-abort.conf
     Active: active (running) since Sun 2024-03-03 16:58:52 CET; 2 days ago
   Main PID: 1526 (python)
      Tasks: 1 (limit: 38105)
     Memory: 11.3M
        CPU: 1h 9min 28.718s
     CGroup: /system.slice/auto-cpufreq.service
             └─1526 /opt/auto-cpufreq/venv/bin/python /opt/auto-cpufreq/venv/bin/auto-cpufreq --daemon

2024-03-06T01:01:47+0100 lamyer python[4026913]: /usr/local/bin/cpufreqctl.auto-cpufreq: line 105: echo: write error: Device or resource busy
2024-03-06T01:01:47+0100 lamyer python[4026913]: /usr/local/bin/cpufreqctl.auto-cpufreq: line 105: echo: write error: Device or resource busy
2024-03-06T01:01:47+0100 lamyer python[4026913]: /usr/local/bin/cpufreqctl.auto-cpufreq: line 105: echo: write error: Device or resource busy
2024-03-06T01:01:47+0100 lamyer python[4026913]: /usr/local/bin/cpufreqctl.auto-cpufreq: line 105: echo: write error: Device or resource busy
2024-03-06T01:01:47+0100 lamyer python[4026913]: /usr/local/bin/cpufreqctl.auto-cpufreq: line 105: echo: write error: Device or resource busy
2024-03-06T01:01:47+0100 lamyer python[4026913]: /usr/local/bin/cpufreqctl.auto-cpufreq: line 105: echo: write error: Device or resource busy
2024-03-06T01:01:47+0100 lamyer python[4026913]: /usr/local/bin/cpufreqctl.auto-cpufreq: line 105: echo: write error: Device or resource busy
2024-03-06T01:01:47+0100 lamyer python[4026913]: /usr/local/bin/cpufreqctl.auto-cpufreq: line 105: echo: write error: Device or resource busy
2024-03-06T01:01:47+0100 lamyer python[4026913]: /usr/local/bin/cpufreqctl.auto-cpufreq: line 105: echo: write error: Device or resource busy
2024-03-06T01:01:47+0100 lamyer python[4026913]: /usr/local/bin/cpufreqctl.auto-cpufreq: line 105: echo: write error: Device or resource busy

[systemofapwne]

I have the same issue on my Surface Pro 7 on Arch. It tries to write balance_performance to /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu7/cpufreq/energy_performance_preference in my case and fails.

I modified line 105 to point stderr to /dev/null. Not a solution though but a workaround to not spam my logs.

function write_value () {
  if [ -w $FLNM ]; then   
    echo $VALUE > $FLNM 2> /dev/null 
  fi
}

[mrceperka]

Got same issue on HP EliteBook 865 G10 with AMD Ryzen™ 9 PRO 7940HS

[AdnanHodzic]

I have the same issue on my Surface Pro 7 on Arch. It tries to write balance_performance to /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu7/cpufreq/energy_performance_preference in my case and fails.

I modified line 105 to point stderr to /dev/null. Not a solution though but a workaround to not spam my logs.

function write_value () {
  if [ -w $FLNM ]; then   
    echo $VALUE > $FLNM 2> /dev/null 
  fi
}

@systemofapwne if this indeed fixes the problem, could you please contribute to the project/create PR? You will be credited for your work as part of future release.

[msmafra]

It's probably a silly thought, sorry if I missed the point.

In search for the "bash script echo write error device or resource busy" to have an idea of what could be, it gave me a bunch of GPIO results, some USB related ones and others, but the answer for this one that made sense to me
https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/704080/cant-write-to-sys-devices-system-cpu-cpufreq-energy-performance-preference-w

Would it just that options are limited by mode you choose a scaling_governor x energy_performance_preference relationship?
If it sets the scaling_governor to performance, energy_performance_preference only accepts performance as an option in the other hand, if it sets the scaling_governor to powersave, energy_performance_preference will accept default balance_performance balance_power power as possible options, including performance. Just not sure if setting performance for powersave works, but it accepts the change.

So it will always have to check which scaling_governor is being used before trying to write, or limit the list to that relationship. Testing on my machine, with an Intel CPU, that "relationship" holds up, meaning, if I set the scaling governor to performance i can't change the energy preference from performance without changing the scaling governor back to powersave

 .601ns fsh ❯ cd /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpufreq/policy0/
cpu/cpufreq/policy0🔒
 .472ns fsh ❯ ls
affected_cpus   cpuinfo_max_freq  cpuinfo_transition_latency                energy_performance_preference  scaling_available_governors  scaling_driver    scaling_max_freq  scaling_setspeed
base_frequency  cpuinfo_min_freq  energy_performance_available_preferences  related_cpus                   scaling_cur_freq             scaling_governor  scaling_min_freq
cpu/cpufreq/policy0🔒
 .930ns fsh ❯ echo power | doas tee energy_performance_preference
power
tee: energy_performance_preference: Device or resource busy
cpu/cpufreq/policy0🔒
 .514ns [!ERROR] fsh ❯ cat scaling_governor
performance

.311ns fsh ❯ echo powersave | doas tee scaling_governor
powersave
cpu/cpufreq/policy0🔒
 .873ns fsh ❯ echo power | doas tee energy_performance_preference
power
 .623ns fsh ❯ cat energy_performance_available_preferences
default performance balance_performance balance_power power
cpu/cpufreq/policy0🔒
 .875ns fsh ❯ echo default | doas tee energy_performance_preference
default
cpu/cpufreq/policy0🔒
 .658ns fsh ❯ echo performance | doas tee energy_performance_preference
performance
cpu/cpufreq/policy0🔒
 .777ns fsh ❯ echo balance_performance | doas tee energy_performance_preference
balance_performance
cpu/cpufreq/policy0🔒
 .359ns fsh ❯ echo balance_power | doas tee energy_performance_preference
balance_power
cpu/cpufreq/policy0🔒

 .092ns fsh ❯ echo performance | doas tee scaling_governor
performance
cpu/cpufreq/policy0🔒
 .158ns fsh ❯ echo balance_power | doas tee energy_performance_preference
balance_power
tee: energy_performance_preference: Device or resource busy
cpu/cpufreq/policy0🔒
 .120ns [!ERROR] fsh ❯ echo balance_performance | doas tee energy_performance_preference
balance_performance
tee: energy_performance_preference: Device or resource busy
cpu/cpufreq/policy0🔒
 .577ns [!ERROR] fsh ❯ echo default | doas tee energy_performance_preference
default
tee: energy_performance_preference: Device or resource busy
cpu/cpufreq/policy0🔒
 .672ns [!ERROR] fsh ❯ echo power | doas tee energy_performance_preference
power
tee: energy_performance_preference: Device or resource busy

[systemofapwne]

I have the same issue on my Surface Pro 7 on Arch. It tries to write balance_performance to /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu7/cpufreq/energy_performance_preference in my case and fails.
I modified line 105 to point stderr to /dev/null. Not a solution though but a workaround to not spam my logs.

function write_value () {
  if [ -w $FLNM ]; then   
    echo $VALUE > $FLNM 2> /dev/null 
  fi
}

@systemofapwne if this indeed fixes the problem, could you please contribute to the project/create PR? You will be credited for your work as part of future release.

This would just cure symptoms, not the underlaying issue. So thats why I didn't create a PR.

[jmergy]

Seeing this on my side now recently as well. Lenovo X1 Carbon

Debian 12 Bookworm
Linux Kernel: 6.1.0-18-amd64
Processor: 12th gen Intel Cote i7-1280P
Cores: 20
Driver: intel_pstate

auto-cpufreq 2.2.0 (git: 166cd06)

Also see some crashes recently so looking into why and found this - probably not related, but saw this in journalctl today. Thousands and thousands of lines.

Mar 14 13:10:05 mergcarb python[16970]: /usr/local/bin/cpufreqctl.auto-cpufreq: line 105: echo: write error: Device or resource busy

[jmergy]

doing the /dev/null redirect for now. See how that goes. Thanks @systemofapwne !

[MiMillieuh]

If you tries to use the acpi governor the issue will be gone. it only affects pstate. however acpi may not be an option for you as it seems to break nvidia-powerd so no more GPU boosting.

So I'm back using intel-pstate and I've disabled auto-cpufreq as not being able to use dynamic boost is not a suitable solution for me.

[LDprg]

This seems not to be a intel pstate specific problem! AMD pstate with active mode does result in the same problem.

Probaply both pstate driver manage turbo boost them self (no need for auto-cpufreq to interfere) and the error is just because the turbo boost flag doesn't exist. So turbo boost (or dynamic boost) still works, it is just managed completely within the driver.

[LDprg]

I also think that this is linked with #602

[khatfull]

doing the /dev/null redirect for now. See how that goes. Thanks @systemofapwne !

In which file do you make the mod? Thanks!

[FosRexx]

Same issue on Acer Nitro AN515-58, but only happens when I am charging. Installed from AUR.

Linux distro: Arch Linux rolling n/a
Linux kernel: 6.8.6-arch1-1
Processor: 12th Gen Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-12450H
Cores: 12
Architecture: x86_64
Driver: intel_pstate

[FosRexx]

doing the /dev/null redirect for now. See how that goes. Thanks @systemofapwne !

In which file do you make the mod? Thanks!

In line 105 in $(which cpufreqctl.auto-cpufreq)

[FosRexx]

So, did some testing and I can confirm that when the scaling_governor is set to performance in my system with a Intel CPU and intel_pstate driver, I cannot set the energy_performance_preference to anything but performance, as already pointed out by the comment above.

Looking into the code in core.py in this line, the problematic cpufreqctl.auto-cpufreq is called with the argument --epp --set=balance_performance, this tries to set the energy_performance_preference to balance_performance but the intel_pstate drive does not allow this when the scaling_governor is set to performance and so we get the spam write error message.

This is resolved when the command is changed to cpufreqctl.auto-cpufreq --epp --set=performance but this would change the behavior in all the system and not just the affected ones. I don't know the advantages and disadvantages of setting energy_performance_preference to balance_performance vs performance so I don't know if this is a good solution.

Briefly looking through the kernel documentation for intel_pstate, their is nothing saying why when setting the scaling_governor to performance the energy_performance_preference cannot be set to balance_performance or anything but performance but this seems to be happening to most systems, so, this might be an intended behavior.

This seems to be an intended behavior, since according to the kernel documentation when HWP is enabled(which is enabled by default during boot with supported processors)and scaling governor is set to performance the processor’s internal P-state selection logic is expected to focus entirely on performance. And this will override the EPP setting and reject any value different from 0 (“performance”).