[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4DF80B03.7000204@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 10:29:39 +0900
From: Hidetoshi Seto <seto.hidetoshi@...fujitsu.com>
To: Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>
CC: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...64.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86, mce: rework use of TIF_MCE_NOTIFY
(2011/06/15 3:28), Tony Luck wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 11:02 AM, Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com> wrote:
>> need (failing address) to take some action. That was put into
>> the ring
>
> Correction - we only put the pfn into the ring for AO (action optional)
> errors [in the current state of the patch series].
>
> But the need for a path to get the pfn from the MC handler to the
> mce_notify_process() function remains the same.
Are there any reason why we cannot have a small special buffer for AR?
For example:
# writer side:
for (i = 0; i < ar_buf_size; i++) {
if (!cmpxchg(&ar_buf[i].pid, 0, current->pid)) {
ar_buf[i].pfn = pfn;
return 0;
}
}
return -1; /* buffer full */
# reader side:
for (i = 0; i < ar_buf_size; i++) {
if (ar_buf[i].pid == current->pid) {
mce_handle_srar(ar_buf[i].pfn);
ar_buf[i].pid = 0;
}
}
I think it is not intrusive rather than having X-bytes for each thread,
which is usually 99.99% unused for its lifetime.
Or ... is it possible to push siginfo w/ addr and pop here?
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