linux-kernel - RE: x86/mce: machine check warning during poweroff

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: <3908561D78D1C84285E8C5FCA982C28F01C672@ORSMSX104.amr.corp.intel.com>
Date:	Mon, 16 Jan 2012 18:27:16 +0000
From:	"Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
To:	Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@...y.org>
CC:	"Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Ming Lei <tom.leiming@...il.com>,
	Djalal Harouni <tixxdz@...ndz.org>,
	Borislav Petkov <borislav.petkov@....com>,
	Hidetoshi Seto <seto.hidetoshi@...fujitsu.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@...y.org>,
	"gouders@...bocholt.fh-gelsenkirchen.de" 
	<gouders@...bocholt.fh-gelsenkirchen.de>,
	Marcos Souza <marcos.mage@...il.com>,
	Linux PM mailing list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
	"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"prasad@...ux.vnet.ibm.com" <prasad@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	"justinmattock@...il.com" <justinmattock@...il.com>,
	Jeff Chua <jeff.chua.linux@...il.com>,
	"Siddha, Suresh B" <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
	Gilad Ben-Yossef <gilad@...yossef.com>
Subject: RE: x86/mce: machine check warning during poweroff

> The "correct" way to fix this up would be to have a per-cpu structure
> for all of the different mce things that are created in this driver
> (struct device, struct mce, exception counts, work queues, polling
> banks, etc.), but that seems pretty messy, and I imagine some of these
> want to stay as-is for some performance issues.  As I don't know this
> code at all, I'm a bit leary to make that kind of change.

If you get so many machine checks that you care about the performance
of the handler - you may be worrying about the wrong things.

I'm more concerned about maintainability of the code. Seto-san has
submitted many patches re-grouping the functions inside mce.c into
functional areas - keeping the data structures separated makes
sense - especially if there is some goal of splitting mce.c into
separate files.

-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/