[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130621073419.GC22006@pd.tnic>
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 09:34:19 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: "Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n.rao@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: tony.luck@...el.com, ananth@...ibm.com, masbock@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
lcm@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, ying.huang@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] mce: acpi/apei: Honour Firmware First for MCA
banks listed in APEI HEST CMC
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 02:52:25AM +0530, Naveen N. Rao wrote:
> Exactly, but mce_poll_banks also doesn't have bits set for banks on
> which CMCI is enabled.
>
> Let's say we have a cpu with 2 banks (not shared), none of which work
> in FF mode. Both these banks support CMCI, so mce_poll_banks won't
> have these bits set.
>
> On cpu offline, we call cmci_clear() which disables CMCI on these two
> banks before offlining it. When this cpu is brought online again, we
> call cmci_discover() which sees that mce_poll_banks doesn't have these
> two banks enabled and will skip enabling CMCI thinking these are in
> FF.
Hmm, mce_intel has yet another bitfield - mce_banks_owned. (Btw, this is
why I have a problem with adding yet another bitfield).
The way I understand it is, if a bit is set in the owned bitfield, those
banks belong to CMCI and are not polled.
Now, can we use both mce_banks_owned and mce_poll_banks? If a bit in
both bifields is cleared, the corresponding bank is not polled *and* is
not owned by CMCI => it is in FF mode.
Makes sense?
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine.
--
--
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