[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <49D1CF60.5020107@linux.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 10:08:00 +0200
From: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
To: Hidetoshi Seto <seto.hidetoshi@...fujitsu.com>
CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -tip 1/3] x86, mce: Add mce_threshold option for intel
cmci
Hidetoshi Seto wrote:
> Andi Kleen wrote:
>> To turn it off you would need to disable the CMCI enable bit
>> completely.
>
> mce_threshold=0 discourages CMCI initialization.
> The CMCI enable bits are kept in off states in this case.
True, I missed that earlier. Still a different option would be better.
>
>> However I expect that this will be not a good idea to ever use on Nehalem
>> class systems at least because without CMCI the machine check code cannot
>> handle shared banks correctly and you'll get duplicated events from them.
>> And on non Nehalem systems there is no CMCI anyways, so it'll be always
>> off.
>
> One question is that even if one clears record in a shared bank, others
> sharing the bank still can retrieve same record? Or the duplication of
> recored only happens if a shared bank is polled by multiple cpu in parallel
> at same time?
Only when multiple CPUs poll (or machine check) at the same time.
>
> So old kernel without CMCI support running on new Nehalem class system will
> make duplicated records, right?
Occasionally when it races yes.
> Doesn't it impact to current distro like RHEL5?
Yes, somewhat. The bigger problem there is actually lack of broadcast handling,
that often leads to incorrect reporting of fatal MCEs.
-Andi
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists