On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 12:56:21AM +0900, Akinobu Mita wrote:
> 2019年11月11日(月) 1:30 Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> >
>
[ ... ]
> > > Example output from the "sensors" command:
> > >
> > > nvme-pci-0100
> > > Adapter: PCI adapter
> > > Composite: +53.0 C (low = -273.0 C, high = +70.0 C)
> > > (crit = +80.0 C)
> > > Sensor 1: +56.0 C (low = -273.0 C, high = +65262.0 C)
> > > Sensor 2: +51.0 C (low = -273.0 C, high = +65262.0 C)
> > > Sensor 5: +73.0 C (low = -273.0 C, high = +65262.0 C)
> > >
> >
> > Have you tried writing the limits ? On my Intel NVME drive (SSDPEKKW512G7), writing
> > any minimum limit on the Composite temperature sensor results in a temperature
> > warning, and that warning is sticky until I reset the controller.
> > I don't see that problem on Samsung SSD 970 EVO 500GB; I have not yet tried others.
>
> I have Crucial CT500P1SSD8 and WDC WDS512G1X0C-00ENX0, and I have no
> problem with these devices.
>
> > root@jupiter:/sys/class/hwmon/hwmon0# sensors nvme-pci-0100
> > nvme-pci-0100
> > Adapter: PCI adapter
> > Composite: +30.0°C (low = -273.0°C, high = +70.0°C)
> > (crit = +80.0°C)
> >
> > root@jupiter:/sys/class/hwmon/hwmon0# echo 0 > temp1_min
> > root@jupiter:/sys/class/hwmon/hwmon0# sensors nvme-pci-0100
> > nvme-pci-0100
> > Adapter: PCI adapter
> > Composite: +30.0°C (low = +0.0°C, high = +70.0°C) ALARM
> > (crit = +80.0°C)
> >
> > It doesn't seem to matter which temperature I write; writing -273000 has
> > the same result.
> >
> > [This is actually why I didn't use the features commands; not that I had observed
> > the problem, but I was concerned that problems like this would show up.]
>
> Maybe we should introduce a new quirk so that we can avoid changing
> temperature threshold for such devices. Could you tell SSDPEKKW512G7's
> vendor and device ID? Quick googling answers it's 8086:f1a5, but I want
> to make sure.
Yes, that is correct.
01:00.0 Non-Volatile memory controller [0108]: Intel Corporation Device [8086:f1a5] (rev 03)
I'll see if I can test this tonight on my other NVMEs. I also dug up an old
NVMe drive from Toshiba; I'll see if I can connect and test it as well.
[ ... ]
> > > */
> > > switch (attr) {
> > > case hwmon_temp_max:
> > > - *val = (data->ctrl->wctemp - 273) * 1000;
> > > + err = nvme_get_temp_thresh(data->ctrl, channel, false, val);
> > > + if (err)
> > > + *val = (data->ctrl->wctemp - 273) * 1000;
> >
> > This would report WCTEMP for all sensors on errors, including errors seen while
> > the controller is resetting. I think it should be something like
> >
> > int err = 0;
> > ...
> >
> > if (!channel)
> > *val = (data->ctrl->wctemp - 273) * 1000;
> > else
> > err = nvme_get_temp_thresh(data->ctrl, channel, false, val);
> > return err;
> >
> > assuming we keep using ctrl->wctemp (see below). If changing the upper Composite
> > temperature sensor limit changes wctemp, and we don't update it, we should not
> > use it at all after registration and just report the error.
> >
> > > return 0;
> > > + case hwmon_temp_min:
> > > + return nvme_get_temp_thresh(data->ctrl, channel, true, val);
> > > case hwmon_temp_crit:
> > > *val = (data->ctrl->cctemp - 273) * 1000;
> > > return 0;
> > > @@ -73,6 +117,23 @@ static int nvme_hwmon_read(struct device *dev, enum hwmon_sensor_types type,
> > > return err;
> > > }
> > >
> > > +static int nvme_hwmon_write(struct device *dev, enum hwmon_sensor_types type,
> > > + u32 attr, int channel, long val)
> > > +{
> > > + struct nvme_hwmon_data *data = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
> > > +
> > > + switch (attr) {
> > > + case hwmon_temp_max:
> > > + return nvme_set_temp_thresh(data->ctrl, channel, false, val);
> >
> > Does this change WCTEMP if written on channel 0 ? If so, we would have to update
> > the cached value of ctrl->wctemp (or never use it after registration).
>
> At least for the devices I have, setting the over temperature threshold
> doesn't change the WCTEMP.
> I have checked with 'nvme id-ctrl /dev/nvme0 | grep ctemp'.
>
Interesting. I just tested this, and the result is the same with Samsung
SSD 970 EVO. With that in mind, maybe we should really not use wctemp
at all after initialization, as I had suggested above. What do you think ?
Thanks,
Guenter
