Message-ID: <AANLkTikAemoFiJWU8F0gyPKY+xSXCRx5LYdjfeBJnOGQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Sat, 20 Nov 2010 19:51:00 +0800
From:	huang ying <huang.ying.caritas@...il.com>
To:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
	huang ying <huang.ying.caritas@...il.com>,
	Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...hat.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Generic hardware error reporting mechanism

On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 5:00 PM, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de> wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 10:52:56AM +0800, huang ying wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 9:56 PM,  <boris@...en8.de> wrote:
>> > Yes, we need a generic error reporting format. Wait a second, this
>> > error format structure looks very much like a tracepoint record to me -
>> > it has common fields and record-specific fields. And we have all that
>> > infrastructure in the kernel and yet you've decided to reimplement it
>> > anew. Remind me again why?
>>
>> You mean "struct trace_entry"? They are quite different on design. The
>> record format in patch can incorporate multiple sections into one
>> record, which is meaningful for hardware error reporting.
>
> Nope, I mean a tracepoint and it can do all those things.

Can you use a tracepoint to output error information of multiple
devices in one error record? That is useful for hardware error
reporting.

>> And we do not need the fancy
>> "/sys/kernel/debug/tracing/events/<xxx>/<xxx>/format", user space
>> error daemon only consumes all error record it recognized and blindly
>> log all other records.
>
> Nobody said you needed that - the tracepoint contains all the
> information you need.

Yes. We do not need that. That is only the side effect.

> [..]
>
>> > - why do we need an
>> > error field for _every_ device on the system? Looks like a bunch of
>> > hoopla for only a few error types...
>>
>> Because every device may report hardware errors, but not every device
>> will do it. So just a pointer is added to "struct device" and
>> corresponding data structure is only created when needed.
>>
>> >> For example, the
>> >> "error" directory for APEI GHES is as follow.
>> >>
>> >> /sys/devices/platform/GHES.0/error/logs
>> >> /sys/devices/platform/GHES.0/error/overflows
>> >> /sys/devices/platform/GHES.0/error/throttles
>> >>
>> >> Where "logs" is number of error records logged; "throttles" is number
>> >> of error records not logged because the reporting rate is too high;
>> >> "overflows" is number of error records not logged because there is no
>> >> space available.
>> >>
>> >> Not all devices will report errors, so struct dev_herr_info and sysfs
>> >> directory/files are only allocated/created for devices explicitly
>> >> enable it.  So to enumerate the error sources of system, you just need
>> >> to enumerate "error" directory for each device directory in
>> >> /sys/devices.
>> >
>> > So how do you say which devices should report and which shouldn't report
>> > errors, from userspace with a tool? Default actions? What if you forget
>> > to enable error reporting of a device which actually is important?
>>
>> In general all hardware errors should be reported and logged.
>
> So why the need to enable/disable them? Why add all that code to
> enable/disable them when all devices can report hw errors but not all
> do it but all should do it... (I can go on forever). Do you see the
> spaghetti statement?

Because some error reporting devices itself may not work properly, we
may need a way to deal with these devices.

>> >> One device file (/dev/error/error) which mixed error records from all
>> >> hardware error reporting devices is created to convey error records
>> >> from kernel space to user space.  Because hardware devices are dealt
>> >> with, a device file is the most natural way to do that.  Because
>> >> hardware error reporting should not hurts system performance, the
>> >> throughput of the interface should be controlled to a low level (done
>> >> by user space error daemon), ordinary "read" is sufficient from
>> >> performance point of view.
>> >
>> > Right, so no need for a daemon but who does the read? cat? How are you
>> > going to collect all those errors? How do you enforce policies?
>>
>> Some summary hardware error information can be put into printk. Error
>> daemon is needed because we need not only log the the error but the
>> predictive recovery. If you really have no daemon, cat can be used to
>> log the error. I don't fully understand your words, you want to
>> enforce policies without error daemon?
>
> Sorry, I misread your original statement. So it is clear that we need
> some kind of daemon to do some error post-processing.
>
>>
>> > How do you inject errors?
>>
>> We can use another device file to inject error, for example
>> /dev/error/error_inject. Just write the needed information to this
>> file. The format can be same as the error record defined as above,
>> because it is highly extensible.
>
> Same argument as above - you can do that with tracepoints without
> duplicating functionality.
>
> [.. ]
>
>> >> A lock-less hardware error record allocator is provided.  So for
>> >> hardware error that can be ignored (such as corrected errors), it is
>> >> not needed to pre-allocate the error record or allocate the error
>> >> record on stack.  Because the possibility for two hardware parts to go
>> >> error simultaneously is very small, one big unified memory pool for
>> >> hardware errors is better than one memory pool or buffer for each
>> >> device.
>> >
>> > Yet another bloat winner. Why do we need a memory allocator for error
>> > records?
>>
>> The point is lockless not the memory allocator. The lockless memory
>> allocator is not hardware error reporting specific, it can be used by
>> other part of the kernel too.
>
> Wait a second, are we talking about hardware errors or memory management
> here? If you want to push your lockless memory allocator, send it in to
> linux-mm and let the guys there look at it, but not in conjunction with
> hw errors. That's like I'm going for a run and, btw, while I'm at it, I
> can buy a coffee machine.

The lockless memory allocator is not in this patch. I push it in
another patch. The error record allocator is just a simplest wrapper
with throttle support integrated.

>> > You either get a single critical error which shuts down the
>> > system and you log it to persistent storage, if possible, or you work at
>> > those uncritical errors one at a time.
>>
>> Uncritical errors can be reported in NMI handler too. So we need
>> lockless data structure for them.
>
> Why? What's wrong with using a single struct on the stack? Are you
> afraid that we might blow the NMI stack although NMIs don't nest?

The lockless memory allocator is used not to save space on stack. It
is part of the lockless data structure needed by hardware error
reporting.

> [.. ]
>
> Dude, let me save you the trouble: all everybody is trying to say is
> that you can achieve all that with stuff already available in the
> kernel.

Tracepoint is not printk, it was not used for error reporting.

> And HW errors are not that special to need a special subsystem
> grown for them - you just need to handle them properly. The only thing
> you should provide is the backend to persistent storage so that error
> info can be put there - everything else is bloat.

It seems that the main different opinion between us is that you want
to implement hardware error reporting inside tracepoint, but I want to
implement it outside tracepoint. Your point is code sharing, my point
is code simplicity. Tracepoint itself is already quite complex, adding
hardware error reporting makes it even more complex. In fact, hardware
error reporting is quite simple. You can see, this patch is quite
small. Even the code added into tracepoint to support hardware error
reporting may be more complex than this patch.

As for code sharing, the main part can be shared between tracepoint
and hardware error reporting is lockless data structure and some NMI
handling facility. But we do not need to implement hardware error
reporting inside tracepoint to share that. Maybe we can refactor
lockless data structure and NMI handling facility inside tracepoint
into a general one, and use that in tracepoint and hardware error
reporting. For example, "irq_work" can be used in hardware error
reporting too.

Best Regards,
Huang Ying
--
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