Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1384054 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH v4 6/6] hwmon: use smp_call_on_cpu() for dell-smm i8k

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [PATCH v4 6/6] hwmon: use smp_call_on_cpu() for dell-smm i8k Pali Rohár <pali.rohar@gmail.com> - 2016-04-21 13:00 +0200
    Re: [PATCH v4 6/6] hwmon: use smp_call_on_cpu() for dell-smm i8k Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com> - 2016-04-21 15:20 +0200
      Re: [PATCH v4 6/6] hwmon: use smp_call_on_cpu() for dell-smm i8k Pali Rohár <pali.rohar@gmail.com> - 2016-04-21 15:30 +0200

#1384054 — Re: [PATCH v4 6/6] hwmon: use smp_call_on_cpu() for dell-smm i8k

On Tuesday 05 April 2016 21:31:52 Pali Rohár wrote:
> On Tuesday 05 April 2016 16:54:14 Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 07:10:07AM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
> > > Use the smp_call_on_cpu() function to call system management
> > > mode on cpu 0.
> > > Make call secure by adding get_online_cpus() to avoid e.g. suspend
> > > resume cycles in between.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>
> > > ---
> > > V4: add call to get_online_cpus()
> > 
> > Pali, any chance to test this ?
> 
> I can test it, but just on machine where (probably) smm calls can be 
> send from any cpu... Need some time for testing and I believe I can do 
> that at the end of the week.

Sorry I had absolutely no more free time last weekend :-( And same
prediction is for this weekend and also next one...

-- 
Pali Rohár
pali.rohar@gmail.com

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1384201

On 21/04/16 12:57, Pali Rohár wrote:
> On Tuesday 05 April 2016 21:31:52 Pali Rohár wrote:
>> On Tuesday 05 April 2016 16:54:14 Guenter Roeck wrote:
>>> On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 07:10:07AM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>>> Use the smp_call_on_cpu() function to call system management
>>>> mode on cpu 0.
>>>> Make call secure by adding get_online_cpus() to avoid e.g. suspend
>>>> resume cycles in between.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> V4: add call to get_online_cpus()
>>>
>>> Pali, any chance to test this ?
>>
>> I can test it, but just on machine where (probably) smm calls can be 
>> send from any cpu... Need some time for testing and I believe I can do 
>> that at the end of the week.
> 
> Sorry I had absolutely no more free time last weekend :-( And same
> prediction is for this weekend and also next one...

Pali, I've got a Dell laptop (Latitude E6440) here. Would this device be
okay for a test? What would you do for testing? In case you can give me
some hints how to do a sensible test I'd do it.

I've verified by adding a printk() to smp_call_on_cpu() that at least
one of the modified drivers has been used during system boot.


Juergen

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1384217

On Thursday 21 April 2016 15:12:52 Juergen Gross wrote:
> On 21/04/16 12:57, Pali Rohár wrote:
> > On Tuesday 05 April 2016 21:31:52 Pali Rohár wrote:
> >> On Tuesday 05 April 2016 16:54:14 Guenter Roeck wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 07:10:07AM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
> >>>> Use the smp_call_on_cpu() function to call system management
> >>>> mode on cpu 0.
> >>>> Make call secure by adding get_online_cpus() to avoid e.g. suspend
> >>>> resume cycles in between.
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>
> >>>> ---
> >>>> V4: add call to get_online_cpus()
> >>>
> >>> Pali, any chance to test this ?
> >>
> >> I can test it, but just on machine where (probably) smm calls can be 
> >> send from any cpu... Need some time for testing and I believe I can do 
> >> that at the end of the week.
> > 
> > Sorry I had absolutely no more free time last weekend :-( And same
> > prediction is for this weekend and also next one...
> 
> Pali, I've got a Dell laptop (Latitude E6440) here. Would this device be
> okay for a test?

Hi!

Proper regression test should check if this patch does not break any
function or drivers dependent on dcdbas.ko. And should be done on both
notebook devices: which needs to issue that smm call on cpu 0 and also
on which it is not needed.

Some notebooks which needs smm call to issued from cpu 0 can be found in
git commit messages of i8k, dell-laptop or dcdbas kernel drivers.

> What would you do for testing? In case you can give me
> some hints how to do a sensible test I'd do it.

Test e.g. dell-laptop.ko driver. It provides /sys interface for changing
keyboard backlight or changing rfkill switches (bluetooth wifi).

Also test tools from libsmbios (userspace) package.

There must be no difference in output/functionality with or without your
patches.

> I've verified by adding a printk() to smp_call_on_cpu() that at least
> one of the modified drivers has been used during system boot.

Also you can patch i8k/dcdbas smm function to print cpu number on which
is code running (to verify that it was really called on cpu 0 as
needed).

-- 
Pali Rohár
pali.rohar@gmail.com

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web