Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1287483
| From | Prarit Bhargava <prarit@redhat.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH] powercap, intel_rapl.c, fix BIOS lock check |
| Date | 2015-12-09 14:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qDMYF-u3-3@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <qDvl8-5U7-31@gated-at.bofh.it> <qDANP-XW-17@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On 12/08/2015 07:12 PM, Seiichi Ikarashi wrote:
> On 2015-12-09 03:33, Prarit Bhargava wrote:
>> Intel RAPL initialized on several systems where the BIOS lock bit (msr
>> 0x610, bit 63) was set. This occured because the return value of
>> rapl_read_data_raw() was being checked, rather than the value of the variable
>> passed in, locked.
>>
>> This patch properly implments the rapl_read_data_raw() call to check the
>> variable locked, and now the Intel RAPL driver outputs the warning:
>>
>> intel_rapl: RAPL package 0 domain package locked by BIOS
>>
>> and does not initialize for the package.
>>
>> Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
>> Cc: Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@linux.intel.com>
>> Cc: Radivoje Jovanovic <radivoje.jovanovic@intel.com>
>> Cc: Seiichi Ikarashi <s.ikarashi@jp.fujitsu.com>
>> Cc: Mathias Krause <minipli@googlemail.com>
>> Cc: Ajay Thomas <ajay.thomas.david.rajamanickam@intel.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Prarit Bhargava <prarit@redhat.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/powercap/intel_rapl.c | 6 ++++--
>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/powercap/intel_rapl.c b/drivers/powercap/intel_rapl.c
>> index cc97f08..0b0d09d 100644
>> --- a/drivers/powercap/intel_rapl.c
>> +++ b/drivers/powercap/intel_rapl.c
>> @@ -1341,11 +1341,13 @@ static int rapl_detect_domains(struct rapl_package *rp, int cpu)
>>
>> for (rd = rp->domains; rd < rp->domains + rp->nr_domains; rd++) {
>> /* check if the domain is locked by BIOS */
>> - if (rapl_read_data_raw(rd, FW_LOCK, false, &locked)) {
>> + ret = rapl_read_data_raw(rd, FW_LOCK, false, &locked);
>> + if (ret)
>> + return ret;
>> + if (locked)
>> pr_info("RAPL package %d domain %s locked by BIOS\n",
>> rp->id, rd->name);
>> rd->state |= DOMAIN_STATE_BIOS_LOCKED;
>> - }
>> }
>
> A good spot!
> But this patch looks setting DOMAIN_STATE_BIOS_LOCKED bit to all package domains.
> I suppose what you are going to do is like below.
>
> --- a/drivers/powercap/intel_rapl.c 2015-11-02 09:05:25.000000000 +0900
> +++ b/drivers/powercap/intel_rapl.c 2015-12-09 09:05:33.386142840 +0900
> @@ -1340,10 +1340,13 @@ static int rapl_detect_domains(struct ra
>
> for (rd = rp->domains; rd < rp->domains + rp->nr_domains; rd++) {
> /* check if the domain is locked by BIOS */
> - if (rapl_read_data_raw(rd, FW_LOCK, false, &locked)) {
> + ret = rapl_read_data_raw(rd, FW_LOCK, false, &locked);
> + if (ret)
> + return ret;
> + if (locked) {
> pr_info("RAPL package %d domain %s locked by BIOS\n",
> rp->id, rd->name);
> - rd->state |= DOMAIN_STATE_BIOS_LOCKED;
> + rd->state |= DOMAIN_STATE_BIOS_LOCKED;
> }
> }
Oh geez :) Of course ... I'll resubmit shortly.
P.
>
>
--
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/
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
[PATCH] powercap, intel_rapl.c, fix BIOS lock check Prarit Bhargava <prarit@redhat.com> - 2015-12-08 19:40 +0100
Re: [PATCH] powercap, intel_rapl.c, fix BIOS lock check Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@linux.intel.com> - 2015-12-09 00:40 +0100
Re: [PATCH] powercap, intel_rapl.c, fix BIOS lock check Seiichi Ikarashi <s.ikarashi@jp.fujitsu.com> - 2015-12-09 01:30 +0100
Re: [PATCH] powercap, intel_rapl.c, fix BIOS lock check Prarit Bhargava <prarit@redhat.com> - 2015-12-09 14:30 +0100
csiph-web