From: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
To: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@intel.com>
Cc: Chen Yucong <slaoub@gmail.com>,
"ak@linux.intel.com" <ak@linux.intel.com>,
"aravind.gopalakrishnan@amd.com" <aravind.gopalakrishnan@amd.com>,
"linux-edac@vger.kernel.org" <linux-edac@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2 v2] x86, mce, severity: extend the the mce_severity
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2014 19:56:38 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20141106185638.GH4318@pd.tnic> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3908561D78D1C84285E8C5FCA982C28F3292433C@ORSMSX114.amr.corp.intel.com>
On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 06:32:37PM +0000, Luck, Tony wrote:
> > Basically, this check is being done only for machine check exceptions
> > only.
>
> But you proposed setting excp by looking at mcg_status:
> > excp = ((m->mcg_status & MCG_STATUS_MCIP) ? EXCP_CONTEXT : NO_EXCP);
>
> Which makes the code rather self referential. If we actually did arrive in MCE handler
> with MCIP == 0 ... then your code would pretend that we'd arrived here from the
> poll code, and skip over the test for MCIP - so fail to report that MCIP wasn't set.
Is that ever possible - to have a discrepancy between the setting of
MCIP and where we call mce_severity()?
I'm under the assumption that at all times, when we get a MCE, MCIP will
be set. For example, mce_gather_info() reads MCG_STATUS before we call
mce_severity() in do_machine_check().
Or am I missing something?
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine.
--
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-11-06 18:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-11-05 4:47 [PATCH 0/2 v2] RAS: add the support for handling UCNA/DEFERRED error Chen Yucong
2014-11-05 4:47 ` [PATCH 1/2 v2] x86, mce, severity: extend the the mce_severity Chen Yucong
2014-11-05 18:27 ` Tony Luck
2014-11-06 1:54 ` Chen Yucong
2014-11-06 15:41 ` Borislav Petkov
2014-11-06 15:35 ` Borislav Petkov
2014-11-06 17:27 ` Luck, Tony
2014-11-06 18:22 ` Borislav Petkov
2014-11-06 18:32 ` Luck, Tony
2014-11-06 18:56 ` Borislav Petkov [this message]
2014-11-06 21:24 ` Luck, Tony
2014-11-07 12:12 ` Borislav Petkov
2014-11-05 4:47 ` [PATCH 2/2 v2] x86, mce: support memory error recovery for both UCNA and Deferred error in machine_check_poll Chen Yucong
2014-11-06 15:48 ` Borislav Petkov
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20141106185638.GH4318@pd.tnic \
--to=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=ak@linux.intel.com \
--cc=aravind.gopalakrishnan@amd.com \
--cc=linux-edac@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=slaoub@gmail.com \
--cc=tony.luck@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox