linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5/9] HWPoison: add memory_failure

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <BANLkTi=5Y0fqsmhsoPm8si=nQBc-tCwtrw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Sun, 22 May 2011 16:14:23 +0800
From:	huang ying <huang.ying.caritas@...il.com>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	"Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>,
	"linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
	"Wu, Fengguang" <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/9] HWPoison: add memory_failure_queue()

On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 7:56 PM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
>
> * Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com> wrote:
>
>> > So why are we not working towards integrating this into our event
>> > reporting/handling framework, as i suggested it from day one on when you
>> > started posting these patches?
>>
>> The memory_failure_queue() introduced in this patch is general, that is, it
>> can be used not only by ACPI/APEI, but also any other hardware error
>> handlers, including your event reporting/handling framework.
>
> Well, the bit you are steadfastly ignoring is what i have made clear well
> before you started adding these facilities: THEY ALREADY EXISTS to a large
> degree :-)
>
> So you were and are duplicating code instead of using and extending existing
> event processing facilities. It does not matter one little bit that the code
> you added is partly 'generic', it's still overlapping and duplicated.

How to do hardware error recovering in your perf framework?  IMHO,  it
can be something as follow:

- NMI handler run for the hardware error, where hardware error
information is collected and put into a ring buffer, an irq_work is
triggered for further work
- In irq_work handler, memory_failure_queue() is called to do the real
recovering work for recoverable memory error in ring buffer.

What's your idea about hardware error recovering in perf?

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/