[lkml]   [2011]   [May]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 5/9] HWPoison: add memory_failure_queue()

    * Huang Ying <> wrote:

    > memory_failure() is the entry point for HWPoison memory error
    > recovery. It must be called in process context. But commonly
    > hardware memory errors are notified via MCE or NMI, so some delayed
    > execution mechanism must be used. In MCE handler, a work queue + ring
    > buffer mechanism is used.
    > In addition to MCE, now APEI (ACPI Platform Error Interface) GHES
    > (Generic Hardware Error Source) can be used to report memory errors
    > too. To add support to APEI GHES memory recovery, a mechanism similar
    > to that of MCE is implemented. memory_failure_queue() is the new
    > entry point that can be called in IRQ context. The next step is to
    > make MCE handler uses this interface too.
    > Signed-off-by: Huang Ying <>
    > Cc: Andi Kleen <>
    > Cc: Wu Fengguang <>
    > Cc: Andrew Morton <>
    > ---
    > include/linux/mm.h | 1
    > mm/memory-failure.c | 92 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    > 2 files changed, 93 insertions(+)

    I have to say i disagree with how this is designed and how this is exposed to
    user-space - and i pointed this out before.

    It's up to Len whether you muck up drivers/acpi/ but here you are patching mm/
    again ...

    I just had a quick look into the current affairs of mm/memory-inject.c and it
    has become an *even* nastier collection of hacks since the last time i
    commented on its uglies.

    Special hack upon special hack, totally disorganized code, special-purpose,
    partly ioctl driven opaque information extraction to user-space using the
    erst-dbg device interface. We have all the maintenance overhead and little of
    the gains from hw error event features...

    In this patch you add:

    +struct memory_failure_entry {
    + unsigned long pfn;
    + int trapno;
    + int flags;

    Instead of exposing this event to other users who might be interested in these
    events - such as the RAS daemon under development by Boris.

    We have a proper framework (ring-buffer, NMI execution, etc.) for reporting
    events, why are you not using (and extending) it instead of creating this nasty
    looking, isolated, ACPI specific low level feature?



     \ /
      Last update: 2011-05-17 10:49    [W:0.022 / U:47.320 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site