[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170412211931.GA15771@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2017 14:19:32 -0700
From: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
"Verma, Vishal L" <vishal.l.verma@...el.com>,
"bp@...e.de" <bp@...e.de>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org" <linux-nvdimm@...1.01.org>,
"ross.zwisler@...ux.intel.com" <ross.zwisler@...ux.intel.com>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] x86, mce: change the mce notifier to 'blocking' from
'atomic'
On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 11:12:21PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> There is another solution:
>
> Convert the notifier to a blocking notifier and in the panic case, ignore
> the locking and invoke the notifier chain directly. That needs some minimal
> surgery in the notifier code to allow that, but that's certainly less ugly
> than splitting stuff up into two chains.
But I wonder whether we actually want two chains. We've been adding a bunch
of general run-time logging and recovery stuff to this chain. So now we have
things there that aren't needed or useful in the panic case. E.g.
srao_decode_notifier() (which tries to offline a page that reported an
uncorrected error out of the execution path) and Boris's new CEC code.
-Tony
Powered by blists - more mailing lists