[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=1nQy03T4LnfHYoB8LBVgFbgaVXA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2011 13:49:47 -0700
From: Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>
To: Hidetoshi Seto <seto.hidetoshi@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...64.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>,
Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/10] MCE: run through processors with more severe
problems first
2011/6/10 Hidetoshi Seto <seto.hidetoshi@...fujitsu.com>:
> Well, I agree about the point that reordering is required to handle
> shared banks.
Thanks (and thanks for taking the time to look at all of this series
to provide such good feedback)
> I think it is better to put this change in early of the series.
Several of the early parts are position independent w.r.t. each
other - I'm not sure if there is some strong benefit to having
them in any particular order.
> I don't like to have multiple cpumasks here, notably one is just an
> inversion of another...
I wasn't completely thrilled with the way this turned out either.
> How about using severity-leveling?
> Pick cpus with PANIC level first, then AR, AO ...
That sounds like I need even more masks (or lists).
> Or how about checking rip in each mces_seen?
This is equivalent to what I did - but I think the code
will be cleaner. I'll give it a try.
-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