Re: [igt-dev] [PATCH i-g-t] runner: Also consider TAINT_MACHINE_CHECK as abortable taint

[Petri Latvala <petri.latvala@intel.com>]

On Wed, Jun 05, 2019 at 03:47:57PM +0300, Mika Kuoppala wrote:
> Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch> writes:
> 
> > On Wed, Jun 05, 2019 at 03:16:07PM +0300, Petri Latvala wrote:
> >> Signed-off-by: Petri Latvala <petri.latvala@intel.com>
> >> Cc: Mika Kuoppala <mika.kuoppala@linux.intel.com>
> >
> > I've seen lots of machines where these happen as normal side-effect of
> > thermal throtlling. For some value of "normal".
> >
> 
> Thermals could be ok and filtered if we can be somewhat certain that
> the state didn't suffer. Can we?
> 
> > Do we really want to reboot on these? It could be like the network thing I
> > recently disabled, and then everyone started screaming because our
> > machines where constantly rebooting due to network cards/drivers
> > temporarily having a bad time (but usually recovering).
> 
> Reboot? This won't get fixed by reboot as the hw is busted.
> 
> The question is that is it fruitful to weed out software
> failures with a broken hardware.


Yeah, I forgot to mention this aspect.

We don't want to just reboot on this: We want to

1) never file a cibuglog filter on TAINT_MACHINE_CHECK. We want that to always be critical.
2) if we get that abort, replace the hw.

Whether that's possible depends on when/if we get that particular taint happening...


-- 
Petri Latvala
_______________________________________________
igt-dev mailing list
igt-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/igt-dev