lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Nov]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] Intel thermal monitor for x86_64 (updated)
On Thu, Nov 18, 2004 at 08:49:47AM -0700, Zwane Mwaikambo wrote:
> diff -u -p -B -r1.1.1.1 mce.h
> --- linux-2.6.10-rc1-mm5/include/asm-x86_64/mce.h 11 Nov 2004 17:21:48 -0000 1.1.1.1
> +++ linux-2.6.10-rc1-mm5/include/asm-x86_64/mce.h 18 Nov 2004 13:18:38 -0000
> @@ -64,4 +64,16 @@ struct mce_log {
> #define MCE_GET_LOG_LEN _IOR('M', 2, int)
> #define MCE_GETCLEAR_FLAGS _IOR('M', 3, int)
>
> +#define MCE_EXTENDED_BANK 20

But better use a higher bank (128 or somesuch). It wouldn't surprise
me if Intel did something similar to their MCE architecture as
they did for their performance counters, and then 20 banks
in the hardware would be quite possible.

> + static cpumask_t logged_cpus;
> + static unsigned long next_check[NR_CPUS];

Use per cpu data for this.

> +
> + ack_APIC_irq();
> +
> + irq_enter();
> + cpu = smp_processor_id();
> + if (time_before(jiffies, next_check[cpu]))
> + goto done;
> +
> + next_check[cpu] = jiffies + HZ*10;
> + memset(&m, 0, sizeof(m));
> + m.cpu = cpu;
> + m.bank = MCE_THERMAL_BANK;
> + rdtscll(m.tsc);
> + rdmsrl(MSR_IA32_THERM_STATUS, m.status);
> + if (m.status & 0x1) {
> + printk(KERN_EMERG
> + "CPU%d: Temperature above threshold, cpu clock throttled\n", m.cpu);
> + add_taint(TAINT_MACHINE_CHECK);
> + } else {
> + printk(KERN_EMERG "CPU%d: Temperature/speed normal\n", m.cpu);
> + }
> +
> + /* Only log the first overheat condition, these can be spurious whilst
> + * the Thermal Control Circuitry attempts to drop the temperature.
> + */
> + if (!cpu_isset(m.cpu, logged_cpus)) {
> + cpu_set(m.cpu, logged_cpus);
> + mce_log(&m);
> + }

Does the comment match the code? I guess you mean the following
events after the first can be bogus.

It seems a bit bogus to printk but not log for known spurious
conditions.

Also the next_check logic should already handle this I guess,
becaumse I assume the temperature dropping won't take
that long. So I guess it would be best to drop that
and if it's still a problem use a longer next_check timeout
of several seconds.

Rest looks good.

-Andi
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:08    [W:0.033 / U:0.992 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site