From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF4FDC2D0C3 for ; Mon, 16 Dec 2019 16:52:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADDA820717 for ; Mon, 16 Dec 2019 16:52:15 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=alien8.de header.i=@alien8.de header.b="WoEmvkXL" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726263AbfLPQwP (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Dec 2019 11:52:15 -0500 Received: from mail.skyhub.de ([5.9.137.197]:49220 "EHLO mail.skyhub.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726133AbfLPQwP (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Dec 2019 11:52:15 -0500 Received: from zn.tnic (p200300EC2F07BC00D0F2C92C76B3ABC9.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [IPv6:2003:ec:2f07:bc00:d0f2:c92c:76b3:abc9]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.skyhub.de (SuperMail on ZX Spectrum 128k) with ESMTPSA id 565DC1EC090E; Mon, 16 Dec 2019 17:52:13 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=alien8.de; s=dkim; t=1576515133; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=wTN5rkr1NDxJwl1jtHOEhLLQszADtXK6VHUxDJWHbik=; b=WoEmvkXLmtDlSQxqinPwGvHMEIW4BoPlxoNcloeK673uGUlZnUVWT/a63YEDjK4htuUf9j 9xZZfKwIXx4HXpQEnYPuT2tabFtpt3b0HvfYOHcXFYRSYUW+XnWCnEn8O66N0wpP+KXliY UheBTdTrRe0QDl+nVIP/cHCZODNVq1E= Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2019 17:52:07 +0100 From: Borislav Petkov To: Jan =?utf-8?Q?H=2E_Sch=C3=B6nherr?= , Yazen Ghannam Cc: "Luck, Tony" , linux-edac@vger.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , x86@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] x86/mce: Various fixes and cleanups for MCE handling Message-ID: <20191216165207.GC17380@zn.tnic> References: <20191210000733.17979-1-jschoenh@amazon.de> <20191211002519.GA30513@agluck-desk2.amr.corp.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Sender: linux-edac-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-edac@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 01:25:31PM +0100, Jan H. Schönherr wrote: > This and names like "uncorrected_memory_error_notifier()" seem to imply > a wider scope than the function actually has. That brings me to another > question: should the scope be wider? > > Instead of filtering for usable addresses and specific severities, we > could for example filter for (similar to cec_add_mce()): > > mce_is_memory_error(m) && > !mce_is_correctable(m) && > mce_usable_address(m) There's a comment above that code which says what that function wants: /* We eat only correctable DRAM errors with usable addresses. */ > Would that make sense? Or does that violate anything, that I'm not aware of? So this should be a decision of the two CPU vendors basically answering the question: for which error severities you want the kernel to poison pages? Basically a question for Tony and Yazen. CCed. -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette