[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <p2jxuwlierrzbgsdjdmiw5336mhj5s57vg77zkekix6fkjqbqi@sa6opsvnxv6d>
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2025 10:39:51 -0700
From: Breno Leitao <leitao@...ian.org>
To: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
Cc: Shuai Xue <xueshuai@...ux.alibaba.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"Graf, Alexander" <graf@...zon.com>, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
Peter Gonda <pgonda@...gle.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
On Thu, Jul 17, 2025 at 05:19:48PM +0000, Luck, Tony wrote:
> >> Personally, I think this approach would be more helpful. Additionally, I
> >> suggest not mixing CEs (Correctable Errors) and UEs (Uncorrectable
> >> Errors) together. This is especially important for memory errors, as CEs
> >> occur much more frequently than UEs, but their impact is much smaller.
>
> Total agreement on keeping corrected memory errors out of this special
> handling. They happen all the time in a large fleet, and are not significant
> unless the same address repeats.
Are these EDAC errors? Shouldn't we track CE errors in
edac_device_handle_ce_count()?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists