Re: [PATCH] powercap/rapl: Do not load in virtualized environments

[Prarit Bhargava <prarit@redhat.com>]

On 05/18/2016 07:06 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 2:38 PM, Prarit Bhargava <prarit@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 05/17/2016 08:50 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 1:34 PM, Prarit Bhargava <prarit@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>> intel_rapl is currently not supported in virtualized environments.  When
>>>> booting the warning message
>>>>
>>>> intel_rapl: no valid rapl domains found in package 0
>>>
>>> You seem to be saying that this message is problematic for some
>>> reason, so why is it?
>>>
>>
>> I thought about my previous answer and after thinking about it realized I didn't
>> give you enough background Rafael.  Virtual environments won't use this feature
>> as this is meant for restricting power consumption at the HW level.
>>
>> So ... here's the situation.  Most CPU features from Intel have a CPU feature
>> bit (also known in some circles as cpuflags) set for them.  For example MCE has
>> an mce bit that is exposed in /proc/cpuinfo.  Unfortunately, for Intel RAPL
>> there is no bit (I don't know if someone dropped the ball or if Intel
>> intentionally left this feature off ... I've heard both explanations :)).
>>
>> In any case the Intel RAPL driver is one of the few cpu based drivers in the
>> kernel that still does a x86_match_cpu() against supported CPUs.  This means for
>> virtual cpus which export the host cpu's cpu model number, the intel_rapl driver
>> will attempt to load for each cpu.
>>
>> As a result the message
>>
>> intel_rapl: no valid rapl domains found in package 0
>>
>> is output as a *visible* error to the user for each virtual core.
>>
>> The error is valid for native cpus (although over 100s of systems I can say I've
>> never seen the warning output on a native cpu) but it is clearly not valid for
>> virtual cpus *because virtualized systems don't use this feature*.
>>
>> The driver shouldn't load on virt systems.  That's the bottom line here, and the
>> patch prevents that from happening.  Would I prefer that there were some other
>> mechanism to detect RAPL?  Yep.  I really really would.  But beyond mucking with
>> MSRs (which is definitely more complicated and awful than this simple check) I
>> don't see any easier method than the one I've proposed.
>>
>> I really don't want to be the one who sets the precedent of abusing x86_hyper in
>> this way.  I know it isn't the "right" thing to do -- but I honestly do not see
>> a better or cleaner way out of this.
> 
> One quite obvious alternative might be to reduce the log level of the
> message in question, say to pr_debug.

Yeah -- I thought about that too.  But that's really a band-aid, isn't it?  The
code shouldn't execute on virt.

P.

>