On 07/15/2015 09:35 AM, Thomas Huth wrote:
> On 07/14/2015 11:22 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>> On Tue, 2015-07-14 at 20:43 +0200, Thomas Huth wrote:
>>> Any suggestions how to fix this? Simply revert 587f83e8dd50d? Use
>>> mdelay() instead of msleep() in rtas_busy_delay()? Something more
>>> fancy?
>>
>> A proper fix would be more fancy, the get_sensor should happen in a
>> kernel thread instead.
>
> I'm not very familiar with this stuff, but isn't the EPOW interrupt
> something that is very time-critical? Moving parts of the handler into a
> kernel thread then does not sound like a very good idea to me...
>
> Another question: Can it happen at all that this get-sensor call results
> in a sleep condition? Looking at commit ID
> 81b73dd92b97423b8f5324a59044da478c04f4c4 ("Fix might-sleep warning on
> removing cpus"), which apparently fixed a similar issue for CPU
> hot-plugging, indicates that at least some of the rtas calls are never
> returning the busy code? In that case we could fix this by introducing a
> similar rtas_get_sensor_fast() function? (or simply revert 587f83e8dd50d
> which would be quite similar, I think)
>
Looking at the PAPR, the get-sensor-state rtas call for the EPOW sensor
is listed as a fast call and should not return a busy indication.
I'm curious as to why we're getting a busy return indication when
making this call.
-Nathan
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm-ppc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
