Re: [PATCH] x86, mce: disable MCE if cpu has no MCE banks

[Mike Travis <travis@sgi.com>]

Roland Dreier wrote:
>  > Perhaps they could be also compressed a bit like SRAT.
> 
> Seems like a good idea... but I wonder what the best way to represent
> things is.  For example I have a 2-socket Nehalem system that shows:
> 
>  2 times:  MCA banks CMCI:2 CMCI:3 CMCI:5 CMCI:6 SHD:8
>  6 times:  MCA banks CMCI:2 CMCI:3 CMCI:5 SHD:6 SHD:8
>  8 times:  MCA banks SHD:2 SHD:3 SHD:5 SHD:6 SHD:8
> 
> presumably the first line is once per package, the next line is for the
> first sibling in all the other cores in a package, and the last line is
> for the SMT siblings of all the cores.
> 
> But would we want to accumulate all the different combinations of banks
> along with a CPU mask and then print something like:
> 
>  CPUs 0 4: MCA banks CMCI:2 CMCI:3 CMCI:5 CMCI:6 SHD:8
>  CPUs 1 2 3 5 6 7: MCA banks CMCI:2 CMCI:3 CMCI:5 SHD:6 SHD:8
>  CPUs 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15: MCA banks SHD:2 SHD:3 SHD:5 SHD:6 SHD:8

Or use a cpumask and cpulist_scnprintf which condenses the cpu list nicely.

> 
> of course output like that is going to lead to super-long lines on a
> 64-thread system.
> 
> Also I'm not sure of a clean way to implement this; unlike the SRAT
> stuff, we need to deal with CPU hotplug so all this at best could be
> __cpuinitdata, ie we can't discard it in most configs.
> 
> However the "MCA banks" output definitely is annoying on a 64-thread
> system -- the amount of output is far greater than the utility of said
> output.  So ideas on the best way to reduce this would be appreciated.
> 
> Thanks,
>   Roland