linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] RAS: Add a tracepoint for reporting memory controller events

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:	Fri, 01 Jun 2012 17:40:40 +0800
From:	Chen Gong <gong.chen@...ux.intel.com>
To:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...64.org>
CC:	"Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...hat.com>,
	Linux Edac Mailing List <linux-edac@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Aristeu Rozanski <arozansk@...hat.com>,
	Doug Thompson <norsk5@...oo.com>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] RAS: Add a tracepoint for reporting memory controller
 events

于 2012/6/1 17:10, Borislav Petkov 写道:
> On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 08:52:21PM +0000, Luck, Tony wrote:
>>> It could be very quiet (i.e., machine runs with no errors) and
>>> it could have bursts where it reports a large number of errors
>>> back-to-back depending on access patterns, DIMM health,
>>> temperature, sea level and at least a bunch more factors.
>> 
>> Yes - the normal case is a few errors from stray neutrons ...
>> perhaps a few per month, maybe on a very big system a few per
>> hour.  When something breaks, especially if it affects a wide
>> range of memory addresses, then you will see a storm of errors.
> 
> IOW, when the sh*t hits the fan :-)
> 
>>> So I can imagine buffers filling up suddenly and fast, and
>>> userspace having hard time consuming them in a timely manner.
>> 
>> But I'm wondering what agent is going to be reporting all these 
>> errors.  Intel has CMCI - so you can get a storm of interrupts 
>> which would each generate a trace record ... but we are working 
>> on a patch to turn off CMCI if a storm is detected.
> 
> Yeah, about that. What are you guys doing about losing CECCs when 
> throttling is on, I'm assuming there's no way around it?
> 

This week I'm busy in doing other work so I have no time to do further
debug on Thomas' patch. I will continue to work on in the next days...
--
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/