[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150924210732.GM3774@pd.tnic>
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2015 23:07:33 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: "Raj, Ashok" <ashok.raj@...el.com>
Cc: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-edac@...r.kernel.org" <linux-edac@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Patch V1 1/3] x86, mce: MCE log size not enough for high core
parts
On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 01:22:12PM -0700, Raj, Ashok wrote:
> Another reason i had a separate buffer in my earlier patch was to avoid
> calling rcu() functions from the offline CPU. I had an offline discussion
> with Paul McKenney he said don't do that...
>
> mce_gen_pool_add()->gen_pool_alloc() which calls rcu_read_lock() and such.
> So it didn't seem approprite.
How are you ever going to call into those from an offlined CPU?!
And that's easy:
if (!cpu_online(cpu))
return;
> Also the function doesn't seem safe to be called in NMI context. Although
That's why it is a lockless buffer - we added it *exactly* because we didn't
want to call printk in an NMI context. So please expand...
> MCE is different, for all intentional purposes we should treat both as same
> priority. The old style log is simple and tested in those cases.
>
> I like everything you say below... something we could do as our next phase
> of improving logging and might need more careful work to build it right.
>
> just like how MC banks have overwrite rules, we can possibly do something
> like that if the buffer fills up.
Right.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply.
--
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