[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4EE961EC.3050706@linux.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 10:56:44 +0800
From: Chen Gong <gong.chen@...ux.intel.com>
To: Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>
CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...64.org>,
"Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>,
Hidetoshi Seto <seto.hidetoshi@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] x86, mce: handle "action required" errors
δΊ 2011/12/15 5:30, Tony Luck ει:
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 1:28 AM, Chen Gong<gong.chen@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>>> - if (kill_it&& tolerant< 3)
>>>
>>> + if (worst != MCE_AR_SEVERITY&& kill_it&& tolerant< 3)
>>> force_sig(SIGBUS, current);
>>
>>
>> I think here it should add more comments to clarify why not killing *AR*
>> case.
>> Such as: "for SRAR errors, such as DCU/IFU error, on affected logical
>> processors, it is reasonable that RIPV is 0."
>
> I'll look at this - the reason to not kill for AR is that we want to
> try to recover
> first (e.g. page could be re-read from disk into a different physical page).
> In some cases we can recover transparently to the application.
Oh, yes, these reasons are very important why not killing *AR* events. But my
point is in a *AR* supported environment, "kill_it" should not be true like
below:
if (!(m.mcgstatus & MCG_STATUS_RIPV))
kill_it = 1;
the reason is what I said before. But at that time the worst severity hasn't
been determined so we have to wati until it is out.
anyway, it is an interesting coincidence, isn't it? :-)
--
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