Messages in this thread |  | | Subject | Re: ledtrig-cpu: Limit to 4 CPUs | From | Jacek Anaszewski <> | Date | Fri, 25 Sep 2020 10:51:38 +0200 |
| |
On 9/22/20 10:41 PM, Jacek Anaszewski wrote: > Hi Pavel, > > On 9/22/20 12:42 AM, Pavel Machek wrote: >> Hi! >> >>>> Can I get details of your setup? >>> >>> I don't use this trigger, but I can imagine that someone does. >> >> Well, if someone exists, we can increase the limit, or convince them >> to change their setup. > > Linux is used in many commercial projects and each such change generates > a cost, so this is not a sheer matter of convincing someone. > >>>> What CPU type that is, and how are you mapping CPU activity to LEDs? >>> >>> The type of CPU is irrelevant here. What is important is the fact >>> that with this trigger it is possible to visually monitor CPU core >>> online state. Probably it would be good to ask the author of that >>> trigger about his use case. >> >> It is relevant -- cpu trigger never worked on x86. I had patch fixing >> it, but got pushback. > > You mean literally x86 (32-bit)? Because I checked yesterday on my > x86_64 and it worked just fine, i.e. changing cpu online state > generated events on all userspace LEDs I registered for each cpuN > trigger. > >>> I have spoken up, because I don't get the reason for your patch. >>> This driver was reworked year ago to remove PAGE_SIZE limit, >>> and I even applied it to my for-next tree, but that was at >>> the time of handling maintainership to yourself, and you >>> seem to not have picked that commit. >>> >>> Was that intentional? We had even Greg's ack [0]. >> >> I checked, and I believe the commit is in: > > Indeed, I blindly sought the changeset in git log for ledtrig-cpu.c > file. > >> #ifdef CONFIG_LEDS_TRIGGERS >> static BIN_ATTR(trigger, 0644, led_trigger_read, led_trigger_write, >> 0); >> static struct bin_attribute *led_trigger_bin_attrs[] = { >> >> So.. no, it is not causing kernel crashes or something. But it is >> example of bad interface, and _that_ is causing problems. (And yes, if >> I realized it is simply possible to limit it, maybe the BIN_ATTR >> conversion would not be neccessary...) > > The limitation you proposed breaks the trigger on many plafforms.
Actually it precludes its use.
I still see the patch in your linux-next, so I reserve myself the right to comment on your pull request.
-- Best regards, Jacek Anaszewski
|  |