Hi, Sorry for interrupting you. I have some information that may be helpful for your discussion. Please find them in the inlined replies. Well, I don't want to join the fight, just for your informations. :-)
> From: linux-acpi-ow...@vger.kernel.org > [mailto:linux-acpi-ow...@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Russ Anderson > Sent: Friday, February 21, 2014 7:59 AM > > On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 11:09:42PM +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > On Thu, 2014-02-20 at 16:45 -0600, Russ Anderson wrote: > > > On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 10:26:45PM +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > > > > > Because I'm trying to ensure that the default behaviour of the kernel is > > > > to *work*. Defaulting to having IPMI be modular means that the default > > > > behaviour of the kernel, as far as the ACPI spec goes, is to be broken. > > > > > > The ACPI spec requires IPMI functionality before a module loads at > > > boot time? And the kernel is *broken* if it does not support ACIP IPMI > > > functionality before module load time? Really? > > > > There's no mechanism to ensure that IPMI support will be loaded before > > ACPI calls attempt to access IPMI operation regions. Really. > > And no mechanism can be added to ensure that ACPI call are > not attempted before IPMI is initialized? A flag or lock > or exported symbol indicating IPMI support is ready. In fact there is a workaround solution I've posted here: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/2831851/ The updated version of this patch can be found at: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/attachment.cgi?id=112611 It is the acpi-ipmi13.patch file. This solution may change the meaning of ACPI spec defined _REG. So we may need a better solution. But after merging this patch, it is safe to unload acpi_ipmi at users' wishes. Without solutions to solve region handler uninstallation races, it is not safe to unload acpi_ipmi module. You can see crashes in the description of this patch. The ipmi_si module is using a different way to unload itself which has not been tested by me. You can find it in Documentation/IPMI.txt by searching "hot and remove of interfaces" in this file. > > > > > ACPI 4.0 includes support for IPMI operation regions. Modular IPMI means > > > > that the kernel will spend a significant amount of time (potentially > > > > until a user manually loads a driver) failing to implement part of the > > > > IPMI specification. That's a problem, and the correct fix is to ensure > > > > that the kernel always implements IPMI support. > > > > > > The ACPI spec says ipmi_si cannot be a driver? Really? > > > What is the real problem you are trying to solve? > > > > The most straightforward case is that of an ACPI power meter. > > So it is just a matter of making sure ipmi_si modules loads before > the ACPI power meter module loads, right? module dependency issue. I agree. I think there should be relationship between ACPI region and Linux kernel modules. In fact on the well-known operating system, _REG is always invoked at the end of the IRP_PNP_START_DEVICE completions. But we may still be able to return -EPROBE_DEFER in the power meter driver when it detects failures caused by the readiness state of the region handlers. I didn't work further on this issue when solving the reported bug: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=46741 > > > Several > > vendors implement this with an IPMI operation region. Calling any of the > > power meter functions will trigger access to that IPMI operation region, > > which will fail. This may result in driver initialisation failing. There > > is no express dependency between the power meter driver and ipmi_si, > > because the spec envisages IPMI support as basic kernel functionality. > > It's meant to be there before you start loading any other drivers. > > The spec "envisages"? I get there is a dependency, that IPMI driver > needs to be loaded before ACIP power meter. This isn't the first > case of a driver being dependent on another driver. That doesn't > mean IPMI driver must be built into the kernel. > > > > > Now, you've described some other problems. I don't disagree that those > > > > are problems. The correct thing for us to do with those problems is to > > > > fix them, not to simply change the kernel defaults such that it's > > > > possible for users to choose between two differently broken states. I'm > > > > absolutely willing to help, as long as you're willing to put some > > > > reasonable amount of effort into describing them. > > > > > > How about ACPI IPMI functionality starts when the ipmi_si > > > module loads at boot time. Actually, I have a solution implemented this. You can find it at: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/attachment.cgi?id=112611 It is the acpi-ipmi14.patch file. The patch will hand the maintenance-ship of acpi_ipmi to IPMI community. I'm not sure it is proper to merge it by Linux upstreams. Thanks and best regards -Lv > > > > I've repeatedly asked for you to provide detailed descriptions of the > > problems you've seen because I have a genuine interest in fixing them. > > If you're just going to childishly refuse then this discussion is > > pointless. > > The distro cases I would point you at are marked private. > And you do not have access to our internal support system. > A simple google search for "kipmi0" shows a lot of reports of > high cpu utilization. > > And I'm old enough to appreciate being called childishly. :-) > > -- > Russ Anderson, Kernel and Performance Software Team Manager > SGI - Silicon Graphics Inc r...@sgi.com > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in > the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
