lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Oct]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] x86, mce: disable MCE if cpu has no MCE banks


Roland Dreier wrote:
> > Perhaps they could be also compressed a bit like SRAT.
>
> Seems like a good idea... but I wonder what the best way to represent
> things is. For example I have a 2-socket Nehalem system that shows:
>
> 2 times: MCA banks CMCI:2 CMCI:3 CMCI:5 CMCI:6 SHD:8
> 6 times: MCA banks CMCI:2 CMCI:3 CMCI:5 SHD:6 SHD:8
> 8 times: MCA banks SHD:2 SHD:3 SHD:5 SHD:6 SHD:8
>
> presumably the first line is once per package, the next line is for the
> first sibling in all the other cores in a package, and the last line is
> for the SMT siblings of all the cores.
>
> But would we want to accumulate all the different combinations of banks
> along with a CPU mask and then print something like:
>
> CPUs 0 4: MCA banks CMCI:2 CMCI:3 CMCI:5 CMCI:6 SHD:8
> CPUs 1 2 3 5 6 7: MCA banks CMCI:2 CMCI:3 CMCI:5 SHD:6 SHD:8
> CPUs 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15: MCA banks SHD:2 SHD:3 SHD:5 SHD:6 SHD:8

Or use a cpumask and cpulist_scnprintf which condenses the cpu list nicely.

>
> of course output like that is going to lead to super-long lines on a
> 64-thread system.
>
> Also I'm not sure of a clean way to implement this; unlike the SRAT
> stuff, we need to deal with CPU hotplug so all this at best could be
> __cpuinitdata, ie we can't discard it in most configs.
>
> However the "MCA banks" output definitely is annoying on a 64-thread
> system -- the amount of output is far greater than the utility of said
> output. So ideas on the best way to reduce this would be appreciated.
>
> Thanks,
> Roland


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-10-28 18:39    [W:0.068 / U:0.084 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site