[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ckn7d3e3xynnup4bbombn7z7xxvld3a7xmqpg4pzp57qebywfc@t2yrn3zqmnje>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2025 05:42:57 -0700
From: Breno Leitao <leitao@...ian.org>
To: Shuai Xue <xueshuai@...ux.alibaba.com>
Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Alexander Graf <graf@...zon.com>,
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>, Peter Gonda <pgonda@...gle.com>,
"Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>, James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
"Moore, Robert" <robert.moore@...el.com>, "linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "acpica-devel@...ts.linux.dev" <acpica-devel@...ts.linux.dev>,
"kernel-team@...a.com" <kernel-team@...a.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ghes: Track number of recovered hardware errors
hello Shuai,
On Wed, Jul 16, 2025 at 11:04:28AM +0800, Shuai Xue wrote:
> > My plan with this patch is to have a counter for hardware errors that
> > would be exposed to the crashdump. So, post-morten analyzes tooling can
> > easily query if there are hardware errors and query RAS information in
> > the right databases, in case it seems a smoking gun.
>
> I see your point. But does using a single ghes_recovered_errors counter
> to track all corrected and non-fatal errors for CPU, memory, and PCIe
> really help?
It provides a quick indication that hardware issues have occurred, which
can prompt the operator to investigate further via RAS events.
That said, Tony proposed a more robust approach—categorizing and
tracking errors by their source. This would involve maintaining separate
counters for each source using an counter per enum type:
enum recovered_error_sources {
ERR_GHES,
ERR_MCE,
ERR_AER,
...
ERR_NUM_SOURCES
};
See more at: https://lore.kernel.org/all/aHWC-J851eaHa_Au@agluck-desk3/
Do you think this would help you by any chance?
Thanks
--breno
Powered by blists - more mailing lists