[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120417183715.GB13989@aftab>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 20:37:15 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...64.org>
To: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Chen Gong <gong.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
"Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>,
Hidetoshi Seto <seto.hidetoshi@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/mce: Avoid reading every machine check bank register
twice.
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 11:04:01AM -0700, Luck, Tony wrote:
> Reading machine check bank registers is slow. There is a trend of
> increasing the number of banks, and the number of cores. The main section
> of do_machine_check() is a serialized section where each cpu in turn
> checks every bank. Even on a little two socket SandyBridge-EP system
> that multiplies out as:
>
> 2 sockets * 8 cores * 2 hyperthreads * 20 banks = 640 MSRs
>
> We already scan the banks in parallel in mce_no_way_out() to see if there
> is a fatal error anywhere in the system. If we build a cache of VALID
> bits during this scan, we can avoid uselessly re-reading banks that have
> no data. Note that this cache is only a hint. If the valid bit is set in a
> shared bank, all cpus that share that bank will see it during the parallel
> scan, but the first to find it in the sequential scan will (usually) clear
> the bank.
>
> Signed-off-by: Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>
> ---
> [I'll push via RAS tree later - after fixing the problems you'll no doubt find :-)]
Why, is Waldo hidden somewhere in this patch for us to find?
:-)
>
> arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce.c | 15 ++++++++++++---
> 1 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce.c
> index d086a09..6f25a7c 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce.c
> @@ -641,14 +641,19 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(machine_check_poll);
> * Do a quick check if any of the events requires a panic.
> * This decides if we keep the events around or clear them.
> */
> -static int mce_no_way_out(struct mce *m, char **msg)
> +static int mce_no_way_out(struct mce *m, char **msg, unsigned long *hintp)
> {
> int i;
>
> for (i = 0; i < banks; i++) {
> m->status = mce_rdmsrl(MSR_IA32_MCx_STATUS(i));
> - if (mce_severity(m, tolerant, msg) >= MCE_PANIC_SEVERITY)
> + if (m->status & MCI_STATUS_VAL)
> + __set_bit(i, hintp);
> + if (mce_severity(m, tolerant, msg) >= MCE_PANIC_SEVERITY) {
> + while (++i < banks)
> + __set_bit(i, hintp);
I'm guessing this is there so that whenever we have a serious MCE
worth of panic, we want to look at the remaining banks no matter their
validity?
Why not continue through the banks, filling up the hint bitmap but make
a note to yourself here that we'll be returning 1 when finished?
> return 1;
> + }
> }
> return 0;
> }
> @@ -1011,6 +1016,7 @@ void do_machine_check(struct pt_regs *regs, long error_code)
> */
> int kill_it = 0;
> DECLARE_BITMAP(toclear, MAX_NR_BANKS);
> + DECLARE_BITMAP(hint, MAX_NR_BANKS);
Maybe call it 'toread' like the toclear above so that we know what it
means? Or even better, valid_banks or something...?
> char *msg = "Unknown";
>
> atomic_inc(&mce_entry);
> @@ -1025,7 +1031,8 @@ void do_machine_check(struct pt_regs *regs, long error_code)
> final = &__get_cpu_var(mces_seen);
> *final = m;
>
> - no_way_out = mce_no_way_out(&m, &msg);
> + memset(hint, 0, sizeof(hint));
> + no_way_out = mce_no_way_out(&m, &msg, hint);
>
> barrier();
>
> @@ -1045,6 +1052,8 @@ void do_machine_check(struct pt_regs *regs, long error_code)
> order = mce_start(&no_way_out);
> for (i = 0; i < banks; i++) {
> __clear_bit(i, toclear);
> + if (!test_bit(i, hint))
> + continue;
> if (!mce_banks[i].ctl)
> continue;
>
> --
> 1.7.9.rc2.1.g69204
>
>
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Advanced Micro Devices GmbH
Einsteinring 24, 85609 Dornach
GM: Alberto Bozzo
Reg: Dornach, Landkreis Muenchen
HRB Nr. 43632 WEEE Registernr: 129 19551
--
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