| Message ID | 1488276702-14646-1-git-send-email-vipin@linux.vnet.ibm.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Headers | show |
Vipin K Parashar <vipin@linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes: > Added check for OPAL_WRONG_STATE error code returned from OPAL. > Currently Linux flashes "unexpected error" over console for this > error. This will avoid throwing such message and return I/O error > for such OPAL failures. > > Signed-off-by: Vipin K Parashar <vipin@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > --- > Changes in v2: > - Added log message indicating sleeping/offline core > for OPAL_WRONG_STATE > > arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/opal.c | 5 ++++- > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/opal.c b/arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/opal.c > index 86d9fde..8af230e 100644 > --- a/arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/opal.c > +++ b/arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/opal.c > @@ -869,8 +869,11 @@ int opal_error_code(int rc) > case OPAL_UNSUPPORTED: return -EIO; > case OPAL_HARDWARE: return -EIO; > case OPAL_INTERNAL_ERROR: return -EIO; > + case OPAL_WRONG_STATE: > + pr_notice("%s: Core sleeping/offline\n", __func__); > + return -EIO; Since this is part of opal_error_code() though, this will be printed for any OPAL call that returns that. Why not have the sensor code do this: rc = opal_sensor_read(foo) if (rc == OPAL_WRONG_STATE) return -EIO; else return oal_error_code(rc); ? > default: > - pr_err("%s: unexpected OPAL error %d\n", __func__, rc); > + pr_err("%s: Unexpected OPAL error %d\n", __func__, rc); Do we need this?
Stewart Smith <stewart@linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes: > Vipin K Parashar <vipin@linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes: >> Added check for OPAL_WRONG_STATE error code returned from OPAL. >> Currently Linux flashes "unexpected error" over console for this >> error. This will avoid throwing such message and return I/O error >> for such OPAL failures. >> >> Signed-off-by: Vipin K Parashar <vipin@linux.vnet.ibm.com> >> --- >> Changes in v2: >> - Added log message indicating sleeping/offline core >> for OPAL_WRONG_STATE >> >> arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/opal.c | 5 ++++- >> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/opal.c b/arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/opal.c >> index 86d9fde..8af230e 100644 >> --- a/arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/opal.c >> +++ b/arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/opal.c >> @@ -869,8 +869,11 @@ int opal_error_code(int rc) >> case OPAL_UNSUPPORTED: return -EIO; >> case OPAL_HARDWARE: return -EIO; >> case OPAL_INTERNAL_ERROR: return -EIO; >> + case OPAL_WRONG_STATE: >> + pr_notice("%s: Core sleeping/offline\n", __func__); >> + return -EIO; > > Since this is part of opal_error_code() though, this will be printed for > any OPAL call that returns that. > > Why not have the sensor code do this: > > rc = opal_sensor_read(foo) > if (rc == OPAL_WRONG_STATE) > return -EIO; > else > return oal_error_code(rc); > > ? Yeah, that's exactly what I said to do, though perhaps I didn't say it clearly enough? ... changing just opal_get_sensor_data() to handle OPAL_WRONG_STATE would be OK, with a comment explaining that we might be asked to read a sensor on an offline CPU and we aren't able to detect that. cheers
Hi Stewart/Michael, Thanks!! for review. Responses as below: On Wednesday 01 March 2017 02:38 AM, Stewart Smith wrote: > Vipin K Parashar <vipin@linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes: >> Added check for OPAL_WRONG_STATE error code returned from OPAL. >> Currently Linux flashes "unexpected error" over console for this >> error. This will avoid throwing such message and return I/O error >> for such OPAL failures. >> >> Signed-off-by: Vipin K Parashar <vipin@linux.vnet.ibm.com> >> --- >> Changes in v2: >> - Added log message indicating sleeping/offline core >> for OPAL_WRONG_STATE >> >> arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/opal.c | 5 ++++- >> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/opal.c b/arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/opal.c >> index 86d9fde..8af230e 100644 >> --- a/arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/opal.c >> +++ b/arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/opal.c >> @@ -869,8 +869,11 @@ int opal_error_code(int rc) >> case OPAL_UNSUPPORTED: return -EIO; >> case OPAL_HARDWARE: return -EIO; >> case OPAL_INTERNAL_ERROR: return -EIO; >> + case OPAL_WRONG_STATE: >> + pr_notice("%s: Core sleeping/offline\n", __func__); >> + return -EIO; > Since this is part of opal_error_code() though, this will be printed for > any OPAL call that returns that. opal_error_coder is used by functions to handle OPAL error codes and return Linux error codes. Apart from opal_get_sensor_data () in opal-sensor.c, opal_error_code is also getting invoked from opal_get_sys_param( ) in opal-sysparam.c. Handling OPAL_WRONG_STATE in opal_error_code itself, seems modular and avoids extra checks for OPAL_WRONG_STATE after opal_error_code usage in multiple functions. opal_error_code is already adding a message upon OPAL_WRONG_STATE return, so its already leaving trace about Sleeping core causing XSCOM failure. By returning OPAL_WRONG_CODE from opal_error_code are we planning some action like on-lining back the sleeping or off-lined core ? > > Why not have the sensor code do this: > > rc = opal_sensor_read(foo) > if (rc == OPAL_WRONG_STATE) > return -EIO; > else > return oal_error_code(rc); > > ? > >> default: >> - pr_err("%s: unexpected OPAL error %d\n", __func__, rc); >> + pr_err("%s: Unexpected OPAL error %d\n", __func__, rc); > Do we need this? > This print helps in alerting about OPAL return codes that aren't supported in running Linux version. Helpful in catching OPAL return code that missed out detection check in Linux. Shall we consider reducing message severity from pr_err to pr_warn ?
On Thursday 02 March 2017 06:00 PM, Vipin K Parashar wrote: > Hi Stewart/Michael, > > Thanks!! for review. > > Responses as below: > > > On Wednesday 01 March 2017 02:38 AM, Stewart Smith wrote: >> Vipin K Parashar <vipin@linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes: >>> Added check for OPAL_WRONG_STATE error code returned from OPAL. >>> Currently Linux flashes "unexpected error" over console for this >>> error. This will avoid throwing such message and return I/O error >>> for such OPAL failures. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Vipin K Parashar <vipin@linux.vnet.ibm.com> >>> --- >>> Changes in v2: >>> - Added log message indicating sleeping/offline core >>> for OPAL_WRONG_STATE >>> >>> arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/opal.c | 5 ++++- >>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/opal.c >>> b/arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/opal.c >>> index 86d9fde..8af230e 100644 >>> --- a/arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/opal.c >>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/opal.c >>> @@ -869,8 +869,11 @@ int opal_error_code(int rc) >>> case OPAL_UNSUPPORTED: return -EIO; >>> case OPAL_HARDWARE: return -EIO; >>> case OPAL_INTERNAL_ERROR: return -EIO; >>> + case OPAL_WRONG_STATE: >>> + pr_notice("%s: Core sleeping/offline\n", __func__); >>> + return -EIO; >> Since this is part of opal_error_code() though, this will be printed for >> any OPAL call that returns that. > > opal_error_coder is used by functions to handle OPAL error codes > and return Linux error codes. Apart from opal_get_sensor_data () > in opal-sensor.c, opal_error_code is also getting invoked from > opal_get_sys_param( ) in opal-sysparam.c. > > Handling OPAL_WRONG_STATE in opal_error_code itself, seems > modular and avoids extra checks for OPAL_WRONG_STATE after > opal_error_code usage in multiple functions. > > opal_error_code is already adding a message upon OPAL_WRONG_STATE > return, so its already leaving trace about Sleeping core causing XSCOM > failure. By returning OPAL_WRONG_CODE from opal_error_code are we > planning some action like on-lining back the sleeping or off-lined core ? > >> >> Why not have the sensor code do this: >> >> rc = opal_sensor_read(foo) >> if (rc == OPAL_WRONG_STATE) >> return -EIO; >> else >> return oal_error_code(rc); >> >> ? >> Avoided adding OPAL_WRONG_STATE check in opal_error_code and instead added a new case for OPAL_WRONG_STATE in opal_get_sensor_data itself. Sending out v3 with the changes. >>> default: >>> - pr_err("%s: unexpected OPAL error %d\n", __func__, rc); >>> + pr_err("%s: Unexpected OPAL error %d\n", __func__, rc); >> Do we need this? >> > > This print helps in alerting about OPAL return codes that aren't > supported in > running Linux version. Helpful in catching OPAL return code that missed > out detection check in Linux. > Shall we consider reducing message severity from pr_err to pr_warn ? >
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/opal.c b/arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/opal.c index 86d9fde..8af230e 100644 --- a/arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/opal.c +++ b/arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/opal.c @@ -869,8 +869,11 @@ int opal_error_code(int rc) case OPAL_UNSUPPORTED: return -EIO; case OPAL_HARDWARE: return -EIO; case OPAL_INTERNAL_ERROR: return -EIO; + case OPAL_WRONG_STATE: + pr_notice("%s: Core sleeping/offline\n", __func__); + return -EIO; default: - pr_err("%s: unexpected OPAL error %d\n", __func__, rc); + pr_err("%s: Unexpected OPAL error %d\n", __func__, rc); return -EIO; } }
Added check for OPAL_WRONG_STATE error code returned from OPAL. Currently Linux flashes "unexpected error" over console for this error. This will avoid throwing such message and return I/O error for such OPAL failures. Signed-off-by: Vipin K Parashar <vipin@linux.vnet.ibm.com> --- Changes in v2: - Added log message indicating sleeping/offline core for OPAL_WRONG_STATE arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/opal.c | 5 ++++- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)