[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20111005123102.GA509@gere.osrc.amd.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2011 14:31:02 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
Cc: "K.Prasad" <prasad@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, crash-utility@...hat.com,
kexec@...ts.infradead.org, Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
"Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>, anderson@...hat.com,
tachibana@....nes.nec.co.jp, oomichi@....nes.nec.co.jp
Subject: Re: [Patch 1/4][kernel][slimdump] Add new elf-note of type
NT_NOCOREDUMP to capture slimdump
On Wed, Oct 05, 2011 at 07:55:46AM -0400, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 09:31:11 +0200, Borislav Petkov said:
> > On Wed, Oct 05, 2011 at 12:37:28PM +0530, K.Prasad wrote:
>
> > > True. Like stated by me earlier, there could be two possible outcomes
> > > from capturing memory dump in such cases - they're either dangerous or
> > > doesn't make sense.
> >
> > Why, in the second example the only corruption is to the L2 cache so
> > your memory image is intact. Why wouldn't you want to capture a memory
> > dump then? It is business as usual in that case.
>
> I'll bite. What's the use case for bothering to capture a memory dump when
> you're looking at an MCE that indicates L2 cache corruption? What additional
> useful information could you possibly get from the dump?
This was just a hypothetical example to show that you need a more
finer-grained differentiation between fatal MCEs when deciding to dump
or not to dump :-) and not to unconditionally _not_ dump just because
we're going to panic.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
--
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