[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4D588379.4050209@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2011 10:20:57 +0900
From: Hidetoshi Seto <seto.hidetoshi@...fujitsu.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
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.
(2011/02/10 18:14), Borislav Petkov wrote:
> 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.
Or how about something like hwerr_panic() to clear that the panic is
requested due to hardware error.
Anyway, Aguchi-san, please note that we should not turn off kexec before
encountering fatal hardware error and before printing/transmitting
enough hardware error log to out of this system.
>
> [..]
>
>>> 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.
One possible answer is that memory-failure.c is not x86 specific.
Thanks,
H.Seto
--
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