On 02/18/2014 02:39 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 02:28:55PM -0500, Prarit Bhargava wrote: > >> The problem is that we've seen users (especially those using clusters) who do >> not want ipmi built in. Their systems generate a tonne of ipmi traffic on their >> systems which they want to ignore. Building IPMI into the kernel results in >> situations where processing these messages causes kipmi to climb to 100% for >> long periods of time. > > If the system firmware is sending messages then the default assumption > ought to be that it's doing so for a reason. It is -- it's likely sending health or power information back to the BMC. But that's not the issue. Clusters (and others) don't care about the BMC on a particular system so they disable IPMI. > >> Maybe that can be solved through an 'ipmi=off' option, or maybe off should be >> the default state for handling of these messages? > > You can disable the various ipmi_si probings via the tryacpi, trydmi and > so on options. That's not intuitive. The current options are awful; one has to specify three kernel parameters IIRC. Keep it simple with "ipmi=off", and maybe a /sys variable to do it at runtime as well (although ... maybe the ipmi_si module parameters are available already?). > >> In any case, I think you're going down the right path here by building this into >> the kernel but IMO there's still some upstream work to do so that we don't hit >> users with 100% kipmi usage and no way of avoiding it. > > Sending enough traffic to keep kipmid at 100% for extended periods of > time implies that there's a *lot* of traffic appearing. What's sending > it, and why? >From the reports I've gathered, which are all from users *who don't want IPMI active on their systems*, it is some sort of health and power data about the system and the cluster. (I'm sure that's a ELI5 to me specifically BTW ;)) What kind of responses are expected? I'm not sure, TBH. I don't think it really matters at the point that there is a huge amount of traffic. I think the BMC is responding FWIW but the issue is that the amount of traffic overwhelms the system. Is the fact that we're > sending nothing back upsetting it? > I don't get that from the reports I've seen. I think the issue is that there is just a huge volume of traffic on these systems. Googling for "centos kipmi 100%" has a lot of hits; we seemingly made a bad choice when we built in IPMI. There is a glimmer of hope we can switch back to modular in RHEL. P. _______________________________________________ kernel mailing list kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/kernel
