[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <SJ1PR11MB608346981E53D14BF37788FCFCFB9@SJ1PR11MB6083.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2023 17:42:47 +0000
From: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
To: Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@...wei.com>
CC: "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>, "hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>,
"linux-edac@...r.kernel.org" <linux-edac@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
"dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] mce: fix missing stack-dumping in mce_panic()
> Agree. A stack dump won't be helpful in this case. But I tend to keep the stack dump in case
> it would be helpful and also make mce_panic() dumps the stack as expected. What do you think?
My #1 preference is to just get stack dumps from machine checks where the cause is known
to be poison consumption by the kernel.
Patches to do this were posted in September 2022
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220922195136.54575-1-tony.luck@intel.com/
Boris has applied part 1 (which was a cleanup). But discussion on part 2
centered around why mce_panic() wasn't giving a full OOPs dump. That's
now understood.
If I can't get my first preference ... then a stack dump for every machine check
is better than no stack dumps at all. So a patch that enables the OOPs dump
would be a good second choice.
I don't want to stick with the current behavior of no stack dumps.
-Tony
Powered by blists - more mailing lists