On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 11:44:45PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 09:31:30PM +0000, Luck, Tony wrote: > > That sounds like the right short term action. > > > > Depending on what we end up with from Srinivas ... we may want > > to reconsider the severity. The basic premise of Srinivas' patch > > is to avoid printing anything for short excursions above temperature > > threshold. But the effect of that is that when we find the core/package > > staying above temperature for an extended period of time, we are > > in a serious situation where some action may be needed. E.g. > > move the laptop off the soft surface that is blocking the air vents. > > I don't think having a critical severity message is nearly enough. > There are cases where the users simply won't see that message, no shell > opened, nothing scanning dmesg, nothing pops up on the desktop to show > KERN_CRIT messages, etc. > > If we really wanna handle this case then we must be much more reliable: > > * we throttle the machine from within the kernel - whatever that may mean > * if that doesn't help, we stop scheduling !root tasks > * if that doesn't help, we halt > * ...
We have forced idle injection, that should be able to reduce the system to barely functional but non-cooker status.