On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 11:36:18PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote: > This description is already *begging* for this delay value to be > automatically set by the kernel. Putting yet another knob in front of > the user who doesn't have a clue most of the time shows one more time > that we haven't done our job properly by asking her to know what we > already do. > > IOW, a simple history feedback mechanism which sets the timeout based on > the last couple of values is much smarter. The thing would have a max > value, of course, which, when exceeded should mean an anomaly, etc, but > almost anything else is better than merely asking the user to make an > educated guess.
You need a plausible start point for the "when to worry the user" message. Maybe that is your "max value"? So if the system has a couple of excursions above temperature lasting 1 second and then 2 seconds ... would you like to see those ignored (because they are below the initial max)? But now we have a couple of data points pick some new value to be the threshold for reporting? What value should we pick (based on 1 sec, then 2 sec)? I would be worried that it would self tune to the point where it does report something that it really didn't need to (e.g. as a result of a few consecutive very short excursions). We also need to take into account the "typical sampling interval" for user space thermal control software. Srinivas: Maybe this needs to have some more detail on what user solutions are being taken into account here. > > Suggested-by: Alan Cox <[email protected]> > > Commit-comment-by: Tony Luck <[email protected]> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > What's that? My fault ... during review process I pretty much re-wrote the whole commit message to follow the form of: "What is the problem?" "How are we fixing it" But I didn't want Srinivas to take the heat for any mistakes that were my fault. "Co-developed-by" really didn't explain what happened (since I didn't write any code, just made suggestions on things that needed to be changed/improved). -Tony
