[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <50361A59.2020308@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 17:26:09 +0530
From: "Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n.rao@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...64.org>
CC: tony.luck@...el.com, andi@...stfloor.org,
gong.chen@...ux.intel.com, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...hat.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
linux-edac@...r.kernel.org, ananth@...ibm.com,
Chris McDermott <lcm@...ibm.com>, masbock@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: mce: Honour bios-set CMCI threshold
On 08/22/2012 06:16 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 06:00:54PM +0530, Naveen N. Rao wrote:
>> The ACPI spec doesn't provide for a way for the bios to pass down
>> recommended thresholds to the OS on a _per-bank_ basis. This patch adds
>> a new boot option, which if passed, allows bios to initialize the CMCI
>> threshold. In such a case, we simply skip programming any threshold
>> value.
>>
>> As fail-safe, we initialize threshold to 1 if some banks have not been
>> initialized by the bios and warn the user.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n.rao@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
>> ---
>> Documentation/x86/x86_64/boot-options.txt | 5 ++++
>> arch/x86/include/asm/mce.h | 1 +
>> arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce.c | 4 +++
>> arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce_intel.c | 39 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
>> 4 files changed, 46 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/x86/x86_64/boot-options.txt b/Documentation/x86/x86_64/boot-options.txt
>> index c54b4f5..ec92540 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/x86/x86_64/boot-options.txt
>> +++ b/Documentation/x86/x86_64/boot-options.txt
>> @@ -50,6 +50,11 @@ Machine check
>> monarchtimeout:
>> Sets the time in us to wait for other CPUs on machine checks. 0
>> to disable.
>> + mce=bios_cmci_threshold
>> + Don't overwrite the bios-set CMCI threshold. This boot option
>> + prevents Linux from overwriting the CMCI threshold set by the
>> + bios. Without this option, Linux always sets the CMCI
>> + threshold to 1.
>>
>> nomce (for compatibility with i386): same as mce=off
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/mce.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/mce.h
>> index a3ac52b..8ad5078 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/mce.h
>> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/mce.h
>> @@ -171,6 +171,7 @@ DECLARE_PER_CPU(struct device *, mce_device);
>> #ifdef CONFIG_X86_MCE_INTEL
>> extern int mce_cmci_disabled;
>> extern int mce_ignore_ce;
>> +extern int mce_bios_cmci_threshold;
>> void mce_intel_feature_init(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c);
>> void cmci_clear(void);
>> void cmci_reenable(void);
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce.c
>> index 292d025..401359d 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce.c
>> @@ -82,6 +82,7 @@ static int mce_panic_timeout __read_mostly;
>> static int mce_dont_log_ce __read_mostly;
>> int mce_cmci_disabled __read_mostly;
>> int mce_ignore_ce __read_mostly;
>> +int mce_bios_cmci_threshold __read_mostly;
>> int mce_ser __read_mostly;
>
> AFAICT, this is actually a single-bit flag but we're using a whole
> integer for it and from looking at the other boot options a couple of
> them are used as flags too.
>
> Care to define a
>
> struct boot_flags {
> __u64 mce_bios_cmci_threshold : 1,
> __reserved : 63;
> };
>
> and use
>
> boot_flags.mce_bios_cmci_threshold
>
> in the conditionals below instead?
Sure - sounds like a good idea. Further, a #define could eliminate the
need to change other references, but I'm not sure that's GENERALLacceptable
#define mce_bios_cmci_threshold boot_flags.mce_bios_cmci_threshold
could eliminate the need to change other references, but I'm not sure
that's acceptable
But, I just had a quick look and it seems to me that these were defined
as integers since they are exposed via sysfs. For instance:
static struct dev_ext_attribute dev_attr_cmci_disabled = {
__ATTR(cmci_disabled, 0644, device_show_int, set_cmci_disabled),
&mce_cmci_disabled
};
Converting mce_cmci_disabled to a bit-field doesn't work since we take
its address above. We could ignore and not set the second field at all
(dev_ext_attribute->var) and define our own callbacks, but that'll be
more work and I'm not sure if we work fine without
>
> I'll try to convert the rest of them to that struct and thus save some
> more space...
>
> Thanks.
>
--
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