[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110210091408.GA10553@liondog.tnic>
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 10:14:08 +0100
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Hidetoshi Seto <seto.hidetoshi@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: Seiji Aguchi <seiji.aguchi@....com>,
"hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>,
"andi@...stfloor.org" <andi@...stfloor.org>,
"ebiederm@...ssion.com" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
"gregkh@...e.de" <gregkh@...e.de>,
"linux-doc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"dle-develop@...ts.sourceforge.net"
<dle-develop@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
"amwang@...hat.com" <amwang@...hat.com>,
Satoru Moriya <satoru.moriya@....com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH v2] Controlling kexec behaviour when hardware
error happened.
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 05:36:58PM +0900, Hidetoshi Seto wrote:
> (2011/02/10 1:35), Seiji Aguchi wrote:
[..]
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce.c
> > index d916183..e76b47b 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce.c
> > @@ -944,6 +944,8 @@ void do_machine_check(struct pt_regs *regs, long error_code)
> >
> > percpu_inc(mce_exception_count);
> >
> > + hwerr_flag = 1;
> > +
> > if (notify_die(DIE_NMI, "machine check", regs, error_code,
> > 18, SIGKILL) == NOTIFY_STOP)
> > goto out;
>
> Now x86 supports some recoverable machine check, so setting
> flag here will prevent running kexec on systems that have
> encountered such recoverable machine check and recovered.
>
> I think mce_panic() is proper place to set this flag "hwerr_flag".
I agree, in that case it is unsafe to run kexec only after the error
cannot be recovered by software.
Also, hwerr_flag is really a bad naming choice, how about
"hwerr_unrecoverable" or "hw_compromised" or "recovery_futile" or
"hw_incurable" or simply say what happened: "pcc" = processor context
corrupt (and a reliable restarting might not be possible). This could be
used by others too, besides kexec.
[..]
> > diff --git a/mm/memory-failure.c b/mm/memory-failure.c index 0207c2f..0178f47 100644
> > --- a/mm/memory-failure.c
> > +++ b/mm/memory-failure.c
> > @@ -994,6 +994,8 @@ int __memory_failure(unsigned long pfn, int trapno, int flags)
> > int res;
> > unsigned int nr_pages;
> >
> > + hwerr_flag = 1;
> > +
> > if (!sysctl_memory_failure_recovery)
> > panic("Memory failure from trap %d on page %lx", trapno, pfn);
> >
>
> For similar reason, setting flag here is not good for
> systems working after isolating some poisoned memory page.
>
> Why not:
> if (!sysctl_memory_failure_recovery) {
> hwerr_flag = 1;
> panic("Memory failure from trap %d on page %lx", trapno, pfn);
> }
Why do we need that in memory-failure.c at all? I mean, when we consume
the UC, we'll end up in mce_panic() anyway.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
--
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