Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 18 Nov 2004 14:57:53 -0700 (MST) | From | Zwane Mwaikambo <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Intel thermal monitor for x86_64 (updated) |
| |
On Thu, 18 Nov 2004, Andi Kleen wrote:
> Flooding the kmsg is as bad. > > I think a better strategy is to just increase the minimum check interval > to avoid this. And then treat printk and mce_log the same. > > > > > > 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. > > > > The temperature drop can take a while, i've observed 2-3 minutes if the > > processor is also loaded and the ambient temperature is low (20C). So you > > could lose 12 or so slots in the mce log due to the temperature ping > > ponging. > > Ok then perhaps a extremly long check timeout of 5 minutes?
Agreed, i'll have something tommorrow.
Thanks for the input, Zwane
- 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/
| |