[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <987664A83D2D224EAE907B061CE93D5301C50FD34B@orsmsx505.amr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 16:44:35 -0700
From: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...64.org>
CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
EDAC devel <linux-edac@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Prarit Bhargava <prarit@...hat.com>,
Nagananda Chumbalkar <Nagananda.Chumbalkar@...com>,
Russ Anderson <rja@....com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH -v2 2/2] x86, MCE: Drop the default decoding notifier
> Sure. Although any DIMM that is generating so many correctable errors
> that you need to rate limit it in the kernel, won't likely to confine
> itself to correctable errors.
>
> Still it can happen that things are so bad that you do need to rate
> limit it in the kernel. Still with those you start wondering "How did
> this machine boot?" So printk_ratelimit sounds like a fine idea.
Perhaps we really want thresholds rather than rate limits (for corrected
errors). One corrected error shouldn't cause any but the most paranoid
to worry. A couple of errors from the same DIMM close together might be
some cause for concern, but could just be happenstance. Enough errors that
rate limiting looks useful, and you are into "something needs to be done"
territory.
-Tony
--
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