| Message ID | 20231004183455.27797-1-ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Changes Requested, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | powercap: intel_rapl: Don't warn about BIOS locked limits during resume | expand |
On Wed, 2023-10-04 at 21:34 +0300, Ville Syrjala wrote: > From: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com> > > Restore enough of the original behaviour to stop spamming > dmesg with warnings about BIOS locked limits when trying > to restore them during resume. > > This still doesn't 100% match the original behaviour > as we no longer attempt to blindly restore the BIOS locked > limits. No idea if that makes any difference in practice. > I lost the context here. Why can't we simply change pr_warn to pr_debug here? Thanks, Srinivas > Cc: Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@intel.com> > Cc: Wang Wendy <wendy.wang@intel.com> > Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com> > Cc: Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@intel.com> > Fixes: 9050a9cd5e4c ("powercap: intel_rapl: Cleanup Power Limits > support") > Signed-off-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com> > --- > drivers/powercap/intel_rapl_common.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++------ > -- > 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/powercap/intel_rapl_common.c > b/drivers/powercap/intel_rapl_common.c > index 40a2cc649c79..9a6a40c83f82 100644 > --- a/drivers/powercap/intel_rapl_common.c > +++ b/drivers/powercap/intel_rapl_common.c > @@ -882,22 +882,34 @@ static int rapl_read_pl_data(struct rapl_domain > *rd, int pl, > return rapl_read_data_raw(rd, prim, xlate, data); > } > > -static int rapl_write_pl_data(struct rapl_domain *rd, int pl, > - enum pl_prims pl_prim, > - unsigned long long value) > +static int rapl_write_pl_data_nowarn(struct rapl_domain *rd, int pl, > + enum pl_prims pl_prim, > + unsigned long long value) > { > enum rapl_primitives prim = get_pl_prim(rd, pl, pl_prim); > > if (!is_pl_valid(rd, pl)) > return -EINVAL; > > - if (rd->rpl[pl].locked) { > - pr_warn("%s:%s:%s locked by BIOS\n", rd->rp->name, > rd->name, pl_names[pl]); > + if (rd->rpl[pl].locked) > return -EACCES; > - } > > return rapl_write_data_raw(rd, prim, value); > } > + > +static int rapl_write_pl_data(struct rapl_domain *rd, int pl, > + enum pl_prims pl_prim, > + unsigned long long value) > +{ > + int ret; > + > + ret = rapl_write_pl_data_nowarn(rd, pl, pl_prim, value); > + if (ret == -EACCES) > + pr_warn("%s:%s:%s locked by BIOS\n", rd->rp->name, > rd->name, pl_names[pl]); > + > + return ret; > +} > + > /* > * Raw RAPL data stored in MSRs are in certain scales. We need to > * convert them into standard units based on the units reported in > @@ -1634,8 +1646,8 @@ static void power_limit_state_restore(void) > rd = power_zone_to_rapl_domain(rp->power_zone); > for (i = POWER_LIMIT1; i < NR_POWER_LIMITS; i++) > if (rd->rpl[i].last_power_limit) > - rapl_write_pl_data(rd, i, PL_LIMIT, > - rd- > >rpl[i].last_power_limit); > + rapl_write_pl_data_nowarn(rd, i, > PL_LIMIT, > + rd- > >rpl[i].last_power_limit); > } > cpus_read_unlock(); > }
On Wed, Oct 04, 2023 at 06:45:22PM +0000, Pandruvada, Srinivas wrote: > On Wed, 2023-10-04 at 21:34 +0300, Ville Syrjala wrote: > > From: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com> > > > > Restore enough of the original behaviour to stop spamming > > dmesg with warnings about BIOS locked limits when trying > > to restore them during resume. > > > > This still doesn't 100% match the original behaviour > > as we no longer attempt to blindly restore the BIOS locked > > limits. No idea if that makes any difference in practice. > > > I lost the context here. Why can't we simply change pr_warn to pr_debug > here? I presume someone wanted to make it pr_warn() for a reason. I don't mind either way. > > Thanks, > Srinivas > > > Cc: Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@intel.com> > > Cc: Wang Wendy <wendy.wang@intel.com> > > Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com> > > Cc: Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@intel.com> > > Fixes: 9050a9cd5e4c ("powercap: intel_rapl: Cleanup Power Limits > > support") > > Signed-off-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com> > > --- > > drivers/powercap/intel_rapl_common.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++------ > > -- > > 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/powercap/intel_rapl_common.c > > b/drivers/powercap/intel_rapl_common.c > > index 40a2cc649c79..9a6a40c83f82 100644 > > --- a/drivers/powercap/intel_rapl_common.c > > +++ b/drivers/powercap/intel_rapl_common.c > > @@ -882,22 +882,34 @@ static int rapl_read_pl_data(struct rapl_domain > > *rd, int pl, > > return rapl_read_data_raw(rd, prim, xlate, data); > > } > > > > -static int rapl_write_pl_data(struct rapl_domain *rd, int pl, > > - enum pl_prims pl_prim, > > - unsigned long long value) > > +static int rapl_write_pl_data_nowarn(struct rapl_domain *rd, int pl, > > + enum pl_prims pl_prim, > > + unsigned long long value) > > { > > enum rapl_primitives prim = get_pl_prim(rd, pl, pl_prim); > > > > if (!is_pl_valid(rd, pl)) > > return -EINVAL; > > > > - if (rd->rpl[pl].locked) { > > - pr_warn("%s:%s:%s locked by BIOS\n", rd->rp->name, > > rd->name, pl_names[pl]); > > + if (rd->rpl[pl].locked) > > return -EACCES; > > - } > > > > return rapl_write_data_raw(rd, prim, value); > > } > > + > > +static int rapl_write_pl_data(struct rapl_domain *rd, int pl, > > + enum pl_prims pl_prim, > > + unsigned long long value) > > +{ > > + int ret; > > + > > + ret = rapl_write_pl_data_nowarn(rd, pl, pl_prim, value); > > + if (ret == -EACCES) > > + pr_warn("%s:%s:%s locked by BIOS\n", rd->rp->name, > > rd->name, pl_names[pl]); > > + > > + return ret; > > +} > > + > > /* > > * Raw RAPL data stored in MSRs are in certain scales. We need to > > * convert them into standard units based on the units reported in > > @@ -1634,8 +1646,8 @@ static void power_limit_state_restore(void) > > rd = power_zone_to_rapl_domain(rp->power_zone); > > for (i = POWER_LIMIT1; i < NR_POWER_LIMITS; i++) > > if (rd->rpl[i].last_power_limit) > > - rapl_write_pl_data(rd, i, PL_LIMIT, > > - rd- > > >rpl[i].last_power_limit); > > + rapl_write_pl_data_nowarn(rd, i, > > PL_LIMIT, > > + rd- > > >rpl[i].last_power_limit); > > } > > cpus_read_unlock(); > > } >
On Wed, Oct 04, 2023 at 09:59:47PM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > On Wed, Oct 04, 2023 at 06:45:22PM +0000, Pandruvada, Srinivas wrote: > > On Wed, 2023-10-04 at 21:34 +0300, Ville Syrjala wrote: > > > From: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com> > > > > > > Restore enough of the original behaviour to stop spamming > > > dmesg with warnings about BIOS locked limits when trying > > > to restore them during resume. > > > > > > This still doesn't 100% match the original behaviour > > > as we no longer attempt to blindly restore the BIOS locked > > > limits. No idea if that makes any difference in practice. > > > > > I lost the context here. Why can't we simply change pr_warn to pr_debug > > here? > > I presume someone wanted to make it pr_warn() for a reason. > I don't mind either way. Ping. Can someone make a decision on how this should get fixed so we get this moving forward? > > > > > Thanks, > > Srinivas > > > > > Cc: Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@intel.com> > > > Cc: Wang Wendy <wendy.wang@intel.com> > > > Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com> > > > Cc: Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@intel.com> > > > Fixes: 9050a9cd5e4c ("powercap: intel_rapl: Cleanup Power Limits > > > support") > > > Signed-off-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com> > > > --- > > > drivers/powercap/intel_rapl_common.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++------ > > > -- > > > 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/powercap/intel_rapl_common.c > > > b/drivers/powercap/intel_rapl_common.c > > > index 40a2cc649c79..9a6a40c83f82 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/powercap/intel_rapl_common.c > > > +++ b/drivers/powercap/intel_rapl_common.c > > > @@ -882,22 +882,34 @@ static int rapl_read_pl_data(struct rapl_domain > > > *rd, int pl, > > > return rapl_read_data_raw(rd, prim, xlate, data); > > > } > > > > > > -static int rapl_write_pl_data(struct rapl_domain *rd, int pl, > > > - enum pl_prims pl_prim, > > > - unsigned long long value) > > > +static int rapl_write_pl_data_nowarn(struct rapl_domain *rd, int pl, > > > + enum pl_prims pl_prim, > > > + unsigned long long value) > > > { > > > enum rapl_primitives prim = get_pl_prim(rd, pl, pl_prim); > > > > > > if (!is_pl_valid(rd, pl)) > > > return -EINVAL; > > > > > > - if (rd->rpl[pl].locked) { > > > - pr_warn("%s:%s:%s locked by BIOS\n", rd->rp->name, > > > rd->name, pl_names[pl]); > > > + if (rd->rpl[pl].locked) > > > return -EACCES; > > > - } > > > > > > return rapl_write_data_raw(rd, prim, value); > > > } > > > + > > > +static int rapl_write_pl_data(struct rapl_domain *rd, int pl, > > > + enum pl_prims pl_prim, > > > + unsigned long long value) > > > +{ > > > + int ret; > > > + > > > + ret = rapl_write_pl_data_nowarn(rd, pl, pl_prim, value); > > > + if (ret == -EACCES) > > > + pr_warn("%s:%s:%s locked by BIOS\n", rd->rp->name, > > > rd->name, pl_names[pl]); > > > + > > > + return ret; > > > +} > > > + > > > /* > > > * Raw RAPL data stored in MSRs are in certain scales. We need to > > > * convert them into standard units based on the units reported in > > > @@ -1634,8 +1646,8 @@ static void power_limit_state_restore(void) > > > rd = power_zone_to_rapl_domain(rp->power_zone); > > > for (i = POWER_LIMIT1; i < NR_POWER_LIMITS; i++) > > > if (rd->rpl[i].last_power_limit) > > > - rapl_write_pl_data(rd, i, PL_LIMIT, > > > - rd- > > > >rpl[i].last_power_limit); > > > + rapl_write_pl_data_nowarn(rd, i, > > > PL_LIMIT, > > > + rd- > > > >rpl[i].last_power_limit); > > > } > > > cpus_read_unlock(); > > > } > > > > -- > Ville Syrjälä > Intel
On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 7:11 PM Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 04, 2023 at 09:59:47PM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 04, 2023 at 06:45:22PM +0000, Pandruvada, Srinivas wrote: > > > On Wed, 2023-10-04 at 21:34 +0300, Ville Syrjala wrote: > > > > From: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com> > > > > > > > > Restore enough of the original behaviour to stop spamming > > > > dmesg with warnings about BIOS locked limits when trying > > > > to restore them during resume. > > > > > > > > This still doesn't 100% match the original behaviour > > > > as we no longer attempt to blindly restore the BIOS locked > > > > limits. No idea if that makes any difference in practice. > > > > > > > I lost the context here. Why can't we simply change pr_warn to pr_debug > > > here? > > > > I presume someone wanted to make it pr_warn() for a reason. > > I don't mind either way. > > Ping. Can someone make a decision on how this should get fixed > so we get this moving forward? I thought we were going to replace the pr_warn() with pr_debug(). > > > > Cc: Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@intel.com> > > > > Cc: Wang Wendy <wendy.wang@intel.com> > > > > Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com> > > > > Cc: Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@intel.com> > > > > Fixes: 9050a9cd5e4c ("powercap: intel_rapl: Cleanup Power Limits > > > > support") > > > > Signed-off-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com> > > > > --- > > > > drivers/powercap/intel_rapl_common.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++------ > > > > -- > > > > 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/powercap/intel_rapl_common.c > > > > b/drivers/powercap/intel_rapl_common.c > > > > index 40a2cc649c79..9a6a40c83f82 100644 > > > > --- a/drivers/powercap/intel_rapl_common.c > > > > +++ b/drivers/powercap/intel_rapl_common.c > > > > @@ -882,22 +882,34 @@ static int rapl_read_pl_data(struct rapl_domain > > > > *rd, int pl, > > > > return rapl_read_data_raw(rd, prim, xlate, data); > > > > } > > > > > > > > -static int rapl_write_pl_data(struct rapl_domain *rd, int pl, > > > > - enum pl_prims pl_prim, > > > > - unsigned long long value) > > > > +static int rapl_write_pl_data_nowarn(struct rapl_domain *rd, int pl, > > > > + enum pl_prims pl_prim, > > > > + unsigned long long value) > > > > { > > > > enum rapl_primitives prim = get_pl_prim(rd, pl, pl_prim); > > > > > > > > if (!is_pl_valid(rd, pl)) > > > > return -EINVAL; > > > > > > > > - if (rd->rpl[pl].locked) { > > > > - pr_warn("%s:%s:%s locked by BIOS\n", rd->rp->name, > > > > rd->name, pl_names[pl]); > > > > + if (rd->rpl[pl].locked) > > > > return -EACCES; > > > > - } > > > > > > > > return rapl_write_data_raw(rd, prim, value); > > > > } > > > > + > > > > +static int rapl_write_pl_data(struct rapl_domain *rd, int pl, > > > > + enum pl_prims pl_prim, > > > > + unsigned long long value) > > > > +{ > > > > + int ret; > > > > + > > > > + ret = rapl_write_pl_data_nowarn(rd, pl, pl_prim, value); > > > > + if (ret == -EACCES) > > > > + pr_warn("%s:%s:%s locked by BIOS\n", rd->rp->name, > > > > rd->name, pl_names[pl]); > > > > + > > > > + return ret; > > > > +} > > > > + > > > > /* > > > > * Raw RAPL data stored in MSRs are in certain scales. We need to > > > > * convert them into standard units based on the units reported in > > > > @@ -1634,8 +1646,8 @@ static void power_limit_state_restore(void) > > > > rd = power_zone_to_rapl_domain(rp->power_zone); > > > > for (i = POWER_LIMIT1; i < NR_POWER_LIMITS; i++) > > > > if (rd->rpl[i].last_power_limit) > > > > - rapl_write_pl_data(rd, i, PL_LIMIT, > > > > - rd- > > > > >rpl[i].last_power_limit); > > > > + rapl_write_pl_data_nowarn(rd, i, > > > > PL_LIMIT, > > > > + rd- > > > > >rpl[i].last_power_limit); > > > > } > > > > cpus_read_unlock(); > > > > } > > > > > > > --
On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 08:31:34PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 7:11 PM Ville Syrjälä > <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Oct 04, 2023 at 09:59:47PM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 04, 2023 at 06:45:22PM +0000, Pandruvada, Srinivas wrote: > > > > On Wed, 2023-10-04 at 21:34 +0300, Ville Syrjala wrote: > > > > > From: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com> > > > > > > > > > > Restore enough of the original behaviour to stop spamming > > > > > dmesg with warnings about BIOS locked limits when trying > > > > > to restore them during resume. > > > > > > > > > > This still doesn't 100% match the original behaviour > > > > > as we no longer attempt to blindly restore the BIOS locked > > > > > limits. No idea if that makes any difference in practice. > > > > > > > > > I lost the context here. Why can't we simply change pr_warn to pr_debug > > > > here? > > > > > > I presume someone wanted to make it pr_warn() for a reason. > > > I don't mind either way. > > > > Ping. Can someone make a decision on how this should get fixed > > so we get this moving forward? > > I thought we were going to replace the pr_warn() with pr_debug(). I didn't get any answer whether anyone wants to keep the pr_warn(). If everyone is happy with pr_debug() that then I can send a patch for it. > > > > > > Cc: Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@intel.com> > > > > > Cc: Wang Wendy <wendy.wang@intel.com> > > > > > Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com> > > > > > Cc: Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@intel.com> > > > > > Fixes: 9050a9cd5e4c ("powercap: intel_rapl: Cleanup Power Limits > > > > > support") > > > > > Signed-off-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com> > > > > > --- > > > > > drivers/powercap/intel_rapl_common.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++------ > > > > > -- > > > > > 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/powercap/intel_rapl_common.c > > > > > b/drivers/powercap/intel_rapl_common.c > > > > > index 40a2cc649c79..9a6a40c83f82 100644 > > > > > --- a/drivers/powercap/intel_rapl_common.c > > > > > +++ b/drivers/powercap/intel_rapl_common.c > > > > > @@ -882,22 +882,34 @@ static int rapl_read_pl_data(struct rapl_domain > > > > > *rd, int pl, > > > > > return rapl_read_data_raw(rd, prim, xlate, data); > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > -static int rapl_write_pl_data(struct rapl_domain *rd, int pl, > > > > > - enum pl_prims pl_prim, > > > > > - unsigned long long value) > > > > > +static int rapl_write_pl_data_nowarn(struct rapl_domain *rd, int pl, > > > > > + enum pl_prims pl_prim, > > > > > + unsigned long long value) > > > > > { > > > > > enum rapl_primitives prim = get_pl_prim(rd, pl, pl_prim); > > > > > > > > > > if (!is_pl_valid(rd, pl)) > > > > > return -EINVAL; > > > > > > > > > > - if (rd->rpl[pl].locked) { > > > > > - pr_warn("%s:%s:%s locked by BIOS\n", rd->rp->name, > > > > > rd->name, pl_names[pl]); > > > > > + if (rd->rpl[pl].locked) > > > > > return -EACCES; > > > > > - } > > > > > > > > > > return rapl_write_data_raw(rd, prim, value); > > > > > } > > > > > + > > > > > +static int rapl_write_pl_data(struct rapl_domain *rd, int pl, > > > > > + enum pl_prims pl_prim, > > > > > + unsigned long long value) > > > > > +{ > > > > > + int ret; > > > > > + > > > > > + ret = rapl_write_pl_data_nowarn(rd, pl, pl_prim, value); > > > > > + if (ret == -EACCES) > > > > > + pr_warn("%s:%s:%s locked by BIOS\n", rd->rp->name, > > > > > rd->name, pl_names[pl]); > > > > > + > > > > > + return ret; > > > > > +} > > > > > + > > > > > /* > > > > > * Raw RAPL data stored in MSRs are in certain scales. We need to > > > > > * convert them into standard units based on the units reported in > > > > > @@ -1634,8 +1646,8 @@ static void power_limit_state_restore(void) > > > > > rd = power_zone_to_rapl_domain(rp->power_zone); > > > > > for (i = POWER_LIMIT1; i < NR_POWER_LIMITS; i++) > > > > > if (rd->rpl[i].last_power_limit) > > > > > - rapl_write_pl_data(rd, i, PL_LIMIT, > > > > > - rd- > > > > > >rpl[i].last_power_limit); > > > > > + rapl_write_pl_data_nowarn(rd, i, > > > > > PL_LIMIT, > > > > > + rd- > > > > > >rpl[i].last_power_limit); > > > > > } > > > > > cpus_read_unlock(); > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > --
On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 8:48 PM Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 08:31:34PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 7:11 PM Ville Syrjälä > > <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 04, 2023 at 09:59:47PM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > > > > On Wed, Oct 04, 2023 at 06:45:22PM +0000, Pandruvada, Srinivas wrote: > > > > > On Wed, 2023-10-04 at 21:34 +0300, Ville Syrjala wrote: > > > > > > From: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com> > > > > > > > > > > > > Restore enough of the original behaviour to stop spamming > > > > > > dmesg with warnings about BIOS locked limits when trying > > > > > > to restore them during resume. > > > > > > > > > > > > This still doesn't 100% match the original behaviour > > > > > > as we no longer attempt to blindly restore the BIOS locked > > > > > > limits. No idea if that makes any difference in practice. > > > > > > > > > > > I lost the context here. Why can't we simply change pr_warn to pr_debug > > > > > here? > > > > > > > > I presume someone wanted to make it pr_warn() for a reason. > > > > I don't mind either way. > > > > > > Ping. Can someone make a decision on how this should get fixed > > > so we get this moving forward? > > > > I thought we were going to replace the pr_warn() with pr_debug(). > > I didn't get any answer whether anyone wants to keep the pr_warn(). > If everyone is happy with pr_debug() that then I can send a patch > for it. Yes, please.
diff --git a/drivers/powercap/intel_rapl_common.c b/drivers/powercap/intel_rapl_common.c index 40a2cc649c79..9a6a40c83f82 100644 --- a/drivers/powercap/intel_rapl_common.c +++ b/drivers/powercap/intel_rapl_common.c @@ -882,22 +882,34 @@ static int rapl_read_pl_data(struct rapl_domain *rd, int pl, return rapl_read_data_raw(rd, prim, xlate, data); } -static int rapl_write_pl_data(struct rapl_domain *rd, int pl, - enum pl_prims pl_prim, - unsigned long long value) +static int rapl_write_pl_data_nowarn(struct rapl_domain *rd, int pl, + enum pl_prims pl_prim, + unsigned long long value) { enum rapl_primitives prim = get_pl_prim(rd, pl, pl_prim); if (!is_pl_valid(rd, pl)) return -EINVAL; - if (rd->rpl[pl].locked) { - pr_warn("%s:%s:%s locked by BIOS\n", rd->rp->name, rd->name, pl_names[pl]); + if (rd->rpl[pl].locked) return -EACCES; - } return rapl_write_data_raw(rd, prim, value); } + +static int rapl_write_pl_data(struct rapl_domain *rd, int pl, + enum pl_prims pl_prim, + unsigned long long value) +{ + int ret; + + ret = rapl_write_pl_data_nowarn(rd, pl, pl_prim, value); + if (ret == -EACCES) + pr_warn("%s:%s:%s locked by BIOS\n", rd->rp->name, rd->name, pl_names[pl]); + + return ret; +} + /* * Raw RAPL data stored in MSRs are in certain scales. We need to * convert them into standard units based on the units reported in @@ -1634,8 +1646,8 @@ static void power_limit_state_restore(void) rd = power_zone_to_rapl_domain(rp->power_zone); for (i = POWER_LIMIT1; i < NR_POWER_LIMITS; i++) if (rd->rpl[i].last_power_limit) - rapl_write_pl_data(rd, i, PL_LIMIT, - rd->rpl[i].last_power_limit); + rapl_write_pl_data_nowarn(rd, i, PL_LIMIT, + rd->rpl[i].last_power_limit); } cpus_read_unlock(); }