Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Sat, 11 Jan 2020 14:17:44 +0100 | From | Borislav Petkov <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] x86/mce: Take action on UCNA/Deferred errors again |
| |
On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 10:45:33AM -0800, Luck, Tony wrote: > I totally agree that counting notifiers is clumsy. Also less than > ideal is the concept that any notifier on the chain can declare: > "I fixed it" > and prevent any other notifiers from even seeing it. Well the concept > is good, but it is overused.
But why can't we use it?
Don't get me wrong: I'm simply following my KISS approach to do the simplest scheme required. So, do you see a use case where the whole error handling chain would need more sophisticated handling?
> I think we may do better with a field in the "struct mce" that is being > passed to each where notifiers can wiggle some bits (semantics to be > defined later) which can tell subsequent notifiers what sort of actions > have been taken. > E.g. the SRAO/UCNA notifier can say "I took this page offline" > the dev_mcelog one can say "I think I handed to a process that has /dev/mcelog open" > EDAC drivers can say "I decoded the address and printed something" > CEC can say: "I silently counted this corrected error", or "error exceeded > threshold and I took the page offline". > > The default notifier can print to console if nobody set a bit to say > that the error had been somehow logged.
That idea is good and I'll gladly take patches for it so if you wanna do it...
Thx.
-- Regards/Gruss, Boris.
https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
|  |