lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [May]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Hardware Error Kernel Mini-Summit

* Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com> wrote:

> > This gives us a broad platform to add various RAS
> > events as well, beyond raw hardware events: we could
> > for example events for various system anomalies such
> > as lockup messages, kernel warnings/oopses, IOMMU
> > exceptions - maybe even pure software concepts such as
> > fatal segmentation fault events, etc. etc.
>
> This looks like sticky ground. I can see the event
> mechanism passing data to a user daemon working well for
> all kinds of corrected and minor errors. But when you
> start talking about lockups and fatal errors things get
> a lot trickier. Often the main concern at this point is
> error containment. Making sure that the flaky data
> doesn't become visible (saved to storage, transmitted to
> the network, etc.). [...]

I was pointing beyond the narrow hardware (memory) error
point of view, towards a more generic 'system health'
thinking.

In the broader view it may makes sense to for example
define policy over excessive number of segfaults on a
server system (where excessive segfaults are an anomaly),
or a suspiciously large number of soft IO errors, etc.

But yes, of course, when it comes to hard memory errors,
those take precedence, and handling them (and
saving/propagating information about them while we still
can) is a priority.

> [...] Getting from a machine check handler through some
> context switches (and page faults etc.) to a user level
> daemon before the error gets recorded looks to be really
> hard.

As Boris mentioned it too, critical policy action can and
will be done straight in the kernel.

Ingo


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-05-19 00:03    [W:0.072 / U:38.840 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site