Hi Srinivas,
On Thu, 2019-10-10 at 14:08 -0700, Srinivas Pandruvada wrote:
> I have a patch to address this. Instead of avoiding any critical
> warnings or wait for 300 seconds for next one, the warning is based on
> how long the system is working on throttled condition. If for example
> the fan broke, then the throttling is extended for a long time. Then we
> better warn.
> I am waiting for internal review, and hope to post by tomorrow.
Nice! I agree that a heuristic seems better than the very simple
approach taken in this patch.
Thanks,
Benjamin
> Thanks
> Srinivas
>
> > > Signed-off-by: Benjamin Berg <bb...@redhat.com>
> > > Tested-by: Christian Kellner <ckell...@redhat.com>
> > > ---
> > > arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mce/therm_throt.c | 2 +-
> > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mce/therm_throt.c
> > > b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mce/therm_throt.c
> > > index 6e2becf547c5..bc441d68d060 100644
> > > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mce/therm_throt.c
> > > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mce/therm_throt.c
> > > @@ -188,7 +188,7 @@ static void therm_throt_process(bool
> > > new_event,
> > > int event, int level)
> > > /* if we just entered the thermal event */
> > > if (new_event) {
> > > if (event == THERMAL_THROTTLING_EVENT)
> > > - pr_crit("CPU%d: %s temperature above threshold,
> > > cpu clock throttled (total events = %lu)\n",
> > > + pr_warn("CPU%d: %s temperature above threshold,
> > > cpu clock throttled (total events = %lu)\n",
> > > this_cpu,
> > > level == CORE_LEVEL ? "Core" :
> > > "Package",
> > > state->count);
> > > --
> >
> > This has carried over since its very first addition in
> >
> > commit 3867eb75b9279c7b0f6840d2ad9f27694ba6c4e4
> > Author: Dave Jones <da...@suse.de>
> > Date: Tue Apr 2 20:02:27 2002 -0800
> >
> > [PATCH] x86 bluesmoke update.
> >
> > o Make MCE compile time optional (Paul Gortmaker)
> > o P4 thermal trip monitoring. (Zwane Mwaikambo)
> > o Non-fatal MCE logging. (Me)
> >
> >
> > It used to be KERN_EMERG back then, though.
> >
> > And yes, this issue has come up in the past already so I think I'll
> > take
> > it. I'll just give Intel folks a couple of days to object should
> > there
> > be anything to object to.
> >
> > Thx.
> >
