linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH] x86: auto poll/interrupt mode switch for CMC to stop CMC storm

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]

Date:	Thu, 24 May 2012 16:27:49 +0000
From:	"Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
To:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
CC:	Chen Gong <gong.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
	"bp@...64.org" <bp@...64.org>, "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] x86: auto poll/interrupt mode switch for CMC to stop
 CMC storm

> So can you please explain how this is better than having this strict
> per cpu and avoid all the mess which comes with that patch? The
> approach of letting global state be modified in a random manner is
> just doomed.

Well doomed sounds bad :-) ... and I think I now agree that we should
get rid of global state and have polling vs. CMCI mode be per-cpu. It
means that it will take fractionally longer to react to a storm, but
on the plus side we'll naturally set storm mode on just the cpus
that are seeing it on a multi-socket system without having to check
topology data ... which should be better for the case where a noisy
source of CMCI is plaguing one socket, while other sockets have some
much lower rate of CMCI that we'd still like to log.

Thanks for the review.

-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/