Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 3/3] x86/mce/therm_throt: allow disabling the thermal vector altogether | From | Srinivas Pandruvada <> | Date | Tue, 14 Apr 2020 14:51:22 -0700 |
| |
On Tue, 2020-04-14 at 15:07 -0600, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote: > On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 2:49 PM Srinivas Pandruvada > <srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > On Tue, 2020-04-14 at 22:23 +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote: > > > + Tony. > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 01:41:08PM -0600, Jason A. Donenfeld > > > wrote: > > > > Generally it is desirable, and extremely common too. This > > > > thermal > > > > code > > > > -- which mostly functions to print some messages into kmsg -- > > > > is > > > > very > > > > verbose. This is not something I want to compile into smaller > > > > systems. > > > > This is the reason why kconfig has options in the first place. > > > > I'm > > > > not > > > > sure yet-another boottime flag makes sense for this. > > > > > > I don't mind making the already existing option selectable and > > > leaving > > > it default y, i.e., keeping the current situation by default. And > > > people > > > who want to disable it, can then do so. > > > > > > I do mind to having yet another config option though. No thanks - > > > they're already too many. > > > > > > So it should be an all or nothing thing. > > > > > > Poking quickly at that and > > > drivers/thermal/intel/x86_pkg_temp_thermal.c, > > > all those things do is report trip points. therm_throt reports > > > how > > > long > > > the hw throttled due to hitting a trip point, etc. > > > > > > IINM, of course so please correct me if I'm missing anything. > > > > > > But if not and this all is only for reporting and doesn't have > > > any > > > detrimental effects on the hardware when missing from the system, > > > then I > > > guess we could make CONFIG_X86_THERMAL_VECTOR user-selectable. > > > > We can make user selectable > > > > These drivers are used for reporting only. > > User space can select a trip temperature via x86_pkg_temp and get > > notification via uevent to start additional cooling system > > (additional > > I didn't see any uevent stuff. Is this part of out-of-tree modules or > proprietary code that's hooking into those EXPORT_SYMBOL (non-GPL) > exports? This is not out of tree. This is x86_pkg_temp driver as part of thermal subsystem, and thermal_zone_device_update() user space governor issues uevent. But those are different modifiable thresholds not the high/low temperature thresholds.
> > > fans, liquid coooling etc), so that processor don't have to go self > > throttling mode. Self throttling depending on processor series and > > firmware can be very aggressive. > > In client systems thermald will set a temperature and starts power > > control once it reaches passive temperature limit. But it can > > function > > without x86_pkg_temp also, so even if user disables thermal > > reporting > > it can still function. > > The 2/3 patch may be interesting as well to you. This removes the > expensive work queue management stuff if the option is deselected, > since all those workqueues do is print messages to kmsg, while > retaining the rest of the infra.
| |