From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bastien ROUCARIES Subject: Re: [RT] [RFC] simple SMI detector Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2009 12:49:18 +0100 Message-ID: <195c7a900901250349t6c0cdc73gdbd71a9f87151d72@mail.gmail.com> References: <1232751312.3990.59.camel@perihelion.bos.jonmasters.org> <75b66ecd0901231833j2fda4554sb0f47457ab838566@mail.gmail.com> <1232845026.3990.71.camel@perihelion.bos.jonmasters.org> <1232849565.29318.112.camel@sven.thebigcorporation.com> <20090125040246.GE9216@mit.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Theodore Tso , Sven-Thorsten Dietrich , Jon Masters , Lee Revell , linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org, LKML , williams , "Luis Claudio R. Goncalves" To: Thomas Gleixner Return-path: Received: from fg-out-1718.google.com ([72.14.220.152]:23208 "EHLO fg-out-1718.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752680AbZAYLtV (ORCPT ); Sun, 25 Jan 2009 06:49:21 -0500 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-rt-users-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 10:40 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Sat, 24 Jan 2009, Theodore Tso wrote: >> On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 01:12:45PM +1100, Sven-Thorsten Dietrich wrote: >> I will also note that for some applications (i.e., military hardware >> running under battle conditions), where it might be that running the >> hardware beyond its thermal limits might actually be *desirable*. >> After all, an extra 15 minutes of running beyond thermal limits that >> eventually causes the CPU to get flakey might be worth it if the >> alternative is the ship getting sunk because the BIOS decided that >> shutting down the CPU to save it from thermal damage was more >> important than say, running the anti-aircraft guns.... > > In that case the system designer knows exactly what he is doing and he > is aware of the consequences. > > My concern about the SMI disable module is that it can damage Joe > users hardware. I have at least two reports where the CPU got fried > and some others where people got confused because chips started > behaving weird and it took quite a time to figure out that they used > the SMI disabler. A big fat warning about this code is definitely > necessary. > > Thanks, I suppose the non joe user could flash their motherboard with linuxcore and therefore do not distrub by SMI :) Regards Bastien