From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1754402AbbDJH1J (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Fri, 10 Apr 2015 03:27:09 -0400
Received: from mail.skyhub.de ([78.46.96.112]:49746 "EHLO mail.skyhub.de"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1754109AbbDJH1D (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 10 Apr 2015 03:27:03 -0400
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2015 09:24:48 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
To: Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@ah.jp.nec.com>
Cc: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@intel.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Prarit Bhargava <prarit@redhat.com>, Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Junichi Nomura <j-nomura@ce.jp.nec.com>,
        Kiyoshi Ueda <k-ueda@ct.jp.nec.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8] x86: mce: kexec: switch MCE handler for kexec/kdump
Message-ID: <20150410072448.GA28074@pd.tnic>
References: <20150407080218.GC27856@hori1.linux.bs1.fc.nec.co.jp>
 <20150409061346.GA25434@pd.tnic>
 <20150409080030.GA4713@gmail.com>
 <20150409082125.GE25434@pd.tnic>
 <20150409085944.GA27042@hori1.linux.bs1.fc.nec.co.jp>
 <20150409095308.GG25434@pd.tnic>
 <3908561D78D1C84285E8C5FCA982C28F32A5D502@ORSMSX114.amr.corp.intel.com>
 <20150409190550.GJ25434@pd.tnic>
 <20150410004933.GA21978@hori1.linux.bs1.fc.nec.co.jp>
 <20150410040726.GB3623@hori1.linux.bs1.fc.nec.co.jp>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20150410040726.GB3623@hori1.linux.bs1.fc.nec.co.jp>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 04:07:26AM +0000, Naoya Horiguchi wrote:
> ... wait, changing cpu_online_mask might confuse admins who try to
> analyze the kdump, especially when the problems causing panic are CPU
> related issues?

Well, if you're offlining the CPUs before doing the dump, you're already
changing the system, aren't you? So why lie to people?

> In the similar way, changing tolerant value loses the original value,
> although this is unlikely to be a problem. But if we change it, using
> an upper bit to keep lowest 2 bit to save the original value is better?

I don't think that you need to do that - you can see from the original
kernel's dmesg whether an MCE happened - we're normally very vocal. If
the user tried to deliberately suppress that, then that's her fault
only.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply.
--