[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150721100824.GA26395@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 12:08:24 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>
Cc: Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>, X86-ML <x86@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, ashok.raj@...el.com,
gong.chen@...ux.intel.com, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] x86/mce: Provide a lockless memory pool to save
error records
* Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de> wrote:
> > So how are we going to report uncorrectable errors that forcibly crash/panic
> > the system if we cannot use printk? How will the admin learn what was amiss?
>
> There's no change to that policy - we still panic for MCEs of MCE_PANIC_SEVERITY
> and higher. And mce_panic() does use printk() to dump that critical information.
Ok, I see: through mce_print().
> The gen_pool stuff is for MCEs for which the hw still raises an #MC exception
> but the severity code determines that we don't need to panic but do recovery
> action.
>
> However, we don't want to call printk() from the #MC exception handler since it
> is NMI-like atomic context and printk is not NMI-safe (yet). Those printks are
> issued later, in process context when we're done with the exception handler and
> recovery action.
Ok - no objections then.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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