| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 14:25:55 -0700
From: Mike Travis <travis@....com>
To: Thomas Renninger <trenn@...e.de>
CC: Bjorn Helgaas <bjorn.helgaas@...com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jack Steiner <steiner@....com>,
Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
Myron Stowe <myron.stowe@...com>,
Feng Tang <feng.tang@...el.com>,
Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
Yinghai Lu <yhlu.kernel@...il.com>, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/8] SGI x86_64 UV: Limit the number of ACPI messages
Thomas Renninger wrote:
> On Saturday 24 October 2009 05:29:47 am Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>> On Fri, 2009-10-23 at 18:37 -0500, Mike Travis wrote:
>>> plain text document attachment (limit_acpi)
>>> Limit number of ACPI messages of the form:
>>>
>>> [ 0.000000] ACPI: LSAPIC (acpi_id[0x00] lsapic_id[0x00]
>>> lsapic_eid[0x00] enabled)
>>>
>>> [ 99.638655] processor ACPI0007:00: registered as cooling_device0
>>>
>>> Cc: Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>
>>> Cc: Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>
>>> Cc: Thomas Renninger <trenn@...e.de>
>>> Cc: Bjorn Helgaas <bjorn.helgaas@...com>
>>> Cc: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>
>>> Cc: Myron Stowe <myron.stowe@...com>
>>> Cc: Feng Tang <feng.tang@...el.com>
>>> Cc: Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>
>>> Cc: Yinghai Lu <yhlu.kernel@...il.com>
>>> Cc: linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org
>>> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
>>> Signed-off-by: Mike Travis <travis@....com>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/acpi/fan.c | 7 ++++++-
>>> drivers/acpi/processor_core.c | 8 ++++++--
>>> drivers/acpi/tables.c | 15 ++++++++++-----
>>> 3 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> --- linux.orig/drivers/acpi/fan.c
>>> +++ linux/drivers/acpi/fan.c
>>> @@ -243,6 +243,7 @@
>>> int result = 0;
>>> int state = 0;
>>> struct thermal_cooling_device *cdev;
>>> + static int msgcnt;
>>>
>>> if (!device)
>>> return -EINVAL;
>>> @@ -267,7 +268,11 @@
>>> goto end;
>>> }
>>>
>>> - dev_info(&device->dev, "registered as cooling_device%d\n", cdev->id);
>>> + if (msgcnt < 4 || !limit_console_output(false)) {
>>> + dev_info(&device->dev,
>>> + "registered as cooling_device%d\n", cdev->id);
>>> + msgcnt++;
>>> + }
>> I'm personally not in favor of printing some, but not all, of these
>> messages. That leads to questions when analyzing a dmesg log, such as
>> "Hmm, I see I have 64 CPUs, but only 0-3 are registered as cooling
>> devices. Does that mean something is wrong?"
>>
>> But I would be glad to see this particular message removed completely.
>>
>>> device->driver_data = cdev;
>>> result = sysfs_create_link(&device->dev.kobj,
>>> --- linux.orig/drivers/acpi/processor_core.c
>>> +++ linux/drivers/acpi/processor_core.c
>>> @@ -775,6 +775,7 @@
>>> struct acpi_processor *pr = NULL;
>>> int result = 0;
>>> struct sys_device *sysdev;
>>> + static int msgcnt;
>>>
>>> pr = kzalloc(sizeof(struct acpi_processor), GFP_KERNEL);
>>> if (!pr)
>>> @@ -845,8 +846,11 @@
>>> goto err_power_exit;
>>> }
>>>
>>> - dev_info(&device->dev, "registered as cooling_device%d\n",
>>> - pr->cdev->id);
>>> + if (msgcnt < 4 || !limit_console_output(false)) {
>>> + dev_info(&device->dev, "registered as cooling_device%d\n",
>>> + pr->cdev->id);
>>> + msgcnt++;
>>> + }
> If Zhang Rui does not complain you can change these:
> ..registered as cooling_device..
> into dev_dbg() without any condition.
> This isn't critical.
>
> Or why not use the more fine grained
> ACPI debug facility and change it into:
> ACPI_DEBUG_PRINT((ACPI_DB_INFO "..."));
> (compare with Documentation/acpi/debug.txt and other
> occurences in the same file)
> You have to pass:
> acpi_dbg_layer=0x20000000
> to see it then.
Ok.
>>> result = sysfs_create_link(&device->dev.kobj,
>>> &pr->cdev->device.kobj,
>>> --- linux.orig/drivers/acpi/tables.c
>>> +++ linux/drivers/acpi/tables.c
>>> @@ -170,11 +170,16 @@
>>> case ACPI_MADT_TYPE_LOCAL_SAPIC:
>>> {
>>> struct acpi_madt_local_sapic *p =
>>> - (struct acpi_madt_local_sapic *)header;
>>> - printk(KERN_INFO PREFIX
>>> - "LSAPIC (acpi_id[0x%02x] lsapic_id[0x%02x] lsapic_eid[0x%02x]
>>> %s)\n", - p->processor_id, p->id, p->eid,
>>> - (p->lapic_flags & ACPI_MADT_ENABLED) ? "enabled" :
>>> "disabled"); + (struct acpi_madt_local_sapic *)header;
>>> +
>>> + if (p->eid < 8 || !limit_console_output(false))
> I can't find limit_console_output(), I expect it got introduced by another one
> of your patch series, not send to the acpi list?
> Still shouldn't this be:
> limit_console_output(true)
> instead of:
> !limit_console_output(false)
>
> Thomas
Sorry, I used a semi-auto method of calling get_maintainer which filled each patch
with specific Cc's. I did send the first one to everyone in hopes that that would
help find the others.
See http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=125634109621411&w=4 (the argument specifies
whether to reduce the console loglevel. It's currently only used to suppress the
cpu bootup messages.)
Thanks,
Mike
>
>>> + printk(KERN_INFO PREFIX
>>> + "LSAPIC (acpi_id[0x%02x] "
>>> + "lsapic_id[0x%02x] "
>>> + "lsapic_eid[0x%02x] %s)\n",
>>> + p->processor_id, p->id, p->eid,
>>> + (p->lapic_flags & ACPI_MADT_ENABLED) ?
>>> + "enabled" : "disabled");
>> I know we print way too much stuff for every processor, but again, I'd
>> rather see all CPUs or none. I think there's a little more value in
>> this one than the cooling device one (probably because I do a lot of
>> platform bringup), but it could certainly be made KERN_DEBUG and/or
>> combined with another processor discovery line.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists