linux-kernel - Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] powercap: intel_rapl: Don't warn about BIOS locked limits during resume

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0jzqZBHqh8dxChwJ65wT-pU3+9HxVi5f7DAcOTFpYTb9Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 24 Oct 2023 20:31:34 +0200
From:   "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To:     Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     "Pandruvada, Srinivas" <srinivas.pandruvada@...el.com>,
        "linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        "intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org" <intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        "Wysocki, Rafael J" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Zhang, Rui" <rui.zhang@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] powercap: intel_rapl: Don't warn about BIOS
 locked limits during resume

On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 7:11 PM Ville Syrjälä
<ville.syrjala@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 04, 2023 at 09:59:47PM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 04, 2023 at 06:45:22PM +0000, Pandruvada, Srinivas wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2023-10-04 at 21:34 +0300, Ville Syrjala wrote:
> > > > From: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@...ux.intel.com>
> > > >
> > > > Restore enough of the original behaviour to stop spamming
> > > > dmesg with warnings about BIOS locked limits when trying
> > > > to restore them during resume.
> > > >
> > > > This still doesn't 100% match the original behaviour
> > > > as we no longer attempt to blindly restore the BIOS locked
> > > > limits. No idea if that makes any difference in practice.
> > > >
> > > I lost the context here. Why can't we simply change pr_warn to pr_debug
> > > here?
> >
> > I presume someone wanted to make it pr_warn() for a reason.
> > I don't mind either way.
>
> Ping. Can someone make a decision on how this should get fixed
> so we get this moving forward?

I thought we were going to replace the pr_warn() with pr_debug().

> > > > Cc: Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>
> > > > Cc: Wang Wendy <wendy.wang@...el.com>
> > > > Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
> > > > Cc: Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...el.com>
> > > > Fixes: 9050a9cd5e4c ("powercap: intel_rapl: Cleanup Power Limits
> > > > support")
> > > > Signed-off-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@...ux.intel.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  drivers/powercap/intel_rapl_common.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++------
> > > > --
> > > >  1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/powercap/intel_rapl_common.c
> > > > b/drivers/powercap/intel_rapl_common.c
> > > > index 40a2cc649c79..9a6a40c83f82 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/powercap/intel_rapl_common.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/powercap/intel_rapl_common.c
> > > > @@ -882,22 +882,34 @@ static int rapl_read_pl_data(struct rapl_domain
> > > > *rd, int pl,
> > > >         return rapl_read_data_raw(rd, prim, xlate, data);
> > > >  }
> > > >
> > > > -static int rapl_write_pl_data(struct rapl_domain *rd, int pl,
> > > > -                              enum pl_prims pl_prim,
> > > > -                              unsigned long long value)
> > > > +static int rapl_write_pl_data_nowarn(struct rapl_domain *rd, int pl,
> > > > +                                    enum pl_prims pl_prim,
> > > > +                                    unsigned long long value)
> > > >  {
> > > >         enum rapl_primitives prim = get_pl_prim(rd, pl, pl_prim);
> > > >
> > > >         if (!is_pl_valid(rd, pl))
> > > >                 return -EINVAL;
> > > >
> > > > -       if (rd->rpl[pl].locked) {
> > > > -               pr_warn("%s:%s:%s locked by BIOS\n", rd->rp->name,
> > > > rd->name, pl_names[pl]);
> > > > +       if (rd->rpl[pl].locked)
> > > >                 return -EACCES;
> > > > -       }
> > > >
> > > >         return rapl_write_data_raw(rd, prim, value);
> > > >  }
> > > > +
> > > > +static int rapl_write_pl_data(struct rapl_domain *rd, int pl,
> > > > +                             enum pl_prims pl_prim,
> > > > +                             unsigned long long value)
> > > > +{
> > > > +       int ret;
> > > > +
> > > > +       ret = rapl_write_pl_data_nowarn(rd, pl, pl_prim, value);
> > > > +       if (ret == -EACCES)
> > > > +               pr_warn("%s:%s:%s locked by BIOS\n", rd->rp->name,
> > > > rd->name, pl_names[pl]);
> > > > +
> > > > +       return ret;
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > >  /*
> > > >   * Raw RAPL data stored in MSRs are in certain scales. We need to
> > > >   * convert them into standard units based on the units reported in
> > > > @@ -1634,8 +1646,8 @@ static void power_limit_state_restore(void)
> > > >                 rd = power_zone_to_rapl_domain(rp->power_zone);
> > > >                 for (i = POWER_LIMIT1; i < NR_POWER_LIMITS; i++)
> > > >                         if (rd->rpl[i].last_power_limit)
> > > > -                               rapl_write_pl_data(rd, i, PL_LIMIT,
> > > > -                                              rd-
> > > > >rpl[i].last_power_limit);
> > > > +                               rapl_write_pl_data_nowarn(rd, i,
> > > > PL_LIMIT,
> > > > +                                                         rd-
> > > > >rpl[i].last_power_limit);
> > > >         }
> > > >         cpus_read_unlock();
> > > >  }
> > >
> >
> > --