lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Apr]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RESEND][PATCH -tip 2/3] x86, mce: Revert "add mce=nopoll option to disable timer polling"
Andi Kleen wrote:
> Hidetoshi Seto <seto.hidetoshi@jp.fujitsu.com> writes:
>
>> Disabling only polling but not cmci is pointless setting.
>> Instead of "mce=nopoll" which tend to be paired with cmci disablement,
>> it rather make sense to have a "mce=ignore_ce" option that disable
>> both of polling and cmci at once. A patch for this new implementation
>> will follow this reverting patch.
>>
>> OTOH, once booted, we can disable polling by setting check_interval
>> to 0, but there are no mention about the fact. Later Andi will post
>> updated documents that can respond this issue.
>
> I still think that patch has bad semantics because you leave around
> the events in the machine check registers and never clear
> them. Especially with MCA recovery that has very unfortunate side
> effects -- it means the OVER bit will be set and a in principle
> recoverable MCA will require a panic. Even without MCA recovery it has
> similar problems and will lead to confusing log output for non CE
> MCAs.
>
> I think a patch to not log corrected errors would be reasonable,
> but you still need to clear the events from the machine check
> banks at least.
>
> So I would recommend you add a mce=dont_log_ce or somesuch
> that just guards the mce_log() call in machine_check_poll()

I suppose there are two possible situations:

1) There is a agent checking/clearing corrected errors
(such as BIOS) other than OS.

In this case, clearing MSRs by OS is not applicable.
So ignore_ce is better option here.

2) There is no agent checking/clearing corrected errors.
User just want to suppress logs of corrected errors.

In this case, dont_log_ce would be better option.
(Or adding filter to mcelog would be another solution)

I don't mind adding three options (no_cmci/ignore_ce/dont_log_ce)
at once. I'll rework 3/3 of this series to do so.

> Also for your use case really the better way would be to use
> some way to let the firmware communicate that it doesn't want the OS
> to log.

Yes. However AFAIK there is no way to do it yet.

> Also BTW before adding new features like this it would be a good
> idea to first add the bug fixes I posted two weeks ago.
>
> -Andi

The original of this repost were posted about three weeks ago (Apr.2)...

I think your patches will go smoothly if my revert patches added before
them.

BTW, could you give me your Acked-by on this 2/3 too?


Thanks,
H.Seto



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-04-20 11:07    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans