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: <20120116183438.GA14792@suse.de>
Date:	Mon, 16 Jan 2012 10:34:38 -0800
From:	Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>
To:	"Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@...y.org>,
	"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>,
	"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

On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 06:27:16PM +0000, Luck, Tony wrote:
> > 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.

Ok, I'll leave that alone, and just focus on the struct device stuff, as
that I know can't be performance critical :)

thanks,

greg k-h
--
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/