[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170727130909.GB28548@nazgul.tnic>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 15:09:09 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-edac <linux-edac@...r.kernel.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
Yazen Ghannam <Yazen.Ghannam@....com>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/8] EDAC, mce_amd: Add a tracepoint for the decoded
error
On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 10:39:27AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> I don't think so: we routinely log several KB per event worth of call chains via
> perf tracing just fine.
>
> So I'd suggest logging more than less, and making it more verbose is definitely
> the way to go.
No no, you're missing the point: we do dump *all* that information - it
is just spread between two tracepoints - trace_mce_record() and this new
one.
BUT(!), I just realized, I *think* I can address this much more
elegantly: extend trace_mce_record() by adding the decoded string as
its last argument. And that's fine, I'm being told, because adding
arguments to the tracepoints is not a big deal, removing them is hard.
And actually, we have added args before, come to think of it:
5828c46f2c07 x86/mce/AMD: Save MCA_IPID in MCE struct on SMCA systems
db819d60f672 x86/mce: Add support for new MCA_SYND register
So lemme look into that - it would be much nicer this way because I
don't need to add a second TP at all.
I agree with the rest but you're obviously preaching to the choir.
:-)
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply.
--
Powered by blists - more mailing lists