[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <55DE2127.3010402@acm.org>
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2015 15:27:19 -0500
From: Corey Minyard <minyard@....org>
To: 河合英宏 / KAWAI,HIDEHIRO
<hidehiro.kawai.ez@...achi.com>
CC: "openipmi-developer@...ts.sourceforge.net"
<openipmi-developer@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/7] ipmi/kcs: Don't run the KCS state machine when it
is KCS_IDLE
On 08/24/2015 10:53 PM, 河合英宏 / KAWAI,HIDEHIRO wrote:
>> From: Corey Minyard [mailto:tcminyard@...il.com] On Behalf Of Corey Minyard
>>
>> On 08/23/2015 08:52 PM, 河合英宏 / KAWAI,HIDEHIRO wrote:
>>>> From: Corey Minyard [mailto:tcminyard@...il.com] On Behalf Of Corey Minyard
>>>>
>>>> On 08/17/2015 09:54 PM, 河合英宏 / KAWAI,HIDEHIRO wrote:
>>>>>> From: Corey Minyard [mailto:tcminyard@...il.com] On Behalf Of Corey Minyard
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This patch will break ATN handling on the interfaces. So we can't do this.
>>>>> I understand. So how about doing like this:
>>>>>
>>>>> /* All states wait for ibf, so just do it here. */
>>>>> - if (!check_ibf(kcs, status, time))
>>>>> + if (kcs->state != KCS_IDLE && !check_ibf(kcs, status, time))
>>>>> return SI_SM_CALL_WITH_DELAY;
>>>>>
>>>>> I think it is not necessary to wait IBF when the state is IDLE.
>>>>> In this way, we can also handle the ATN case.
>>>> I think it would be more reliable to go up a level and add a timeout.
>>> It may be so, but we should address this issue separately (at least
>>> I think above solution reasonably solves the issue).
>>>
>>> This issue happens after all queued messages are processed or dropped
>>> by timeout. There is no current message. So what should we set
>>> a timeout against? We can add a timeout into my new flush_messages(),
>>> but that is meaningful only in panic context. That doesn't help
>>> in normal context; we would perform a busy loop of smi_event_handler()
>>> and schedule() in ipmi_thread().
>> I'm a little confused here. Is the problem that the ATN bit is stuck
>> high? If so, it's going to be really hard to work around this without
>> breaking ATN handling.
> Sorry for my insufficient explanation. I assume the case where
> IBF bit is always 1. I don't know what happens when
> BMC hangs up, but I guess IBF stays in 1 because my server's
> BMC behaves as such while rebooting.
>
Ok, your patch above makes sense, then. IBF is irrelevant when in idle
state,
so ignore it then, and then in your case it will return KCS_IDLE and
cause that
operation to complete. I'm ok with the patch you posted above, I think
it will
work correctly and solve the problem.
I would like a detailed comment, though, so people (forgetful people
like me :)
can figure out why it is there. I'd also like to save this one until
4.4 to give it some
time in linux-next for people to find issues.
Thanks,
-corey
--
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