Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1232435
| From | Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [Patch V1 1/3] x86, mce: MCE log size not enough for high core parts |
| Date | 2015-09-24 23:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <qclW9-6eY-7@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | (2 earlier) <qcjKG-2WY-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <qcjUm-389-13@gated-at.bofh.it> <qck41-3yV-15@gated-at.bofh.it> <qcknn-3W1-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <qcljr-5he-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 01:22:12PM -0700, Raj, Ashok wrote:
> Another reason i had a separate buffer in my earlier patch was to avoid
> calling rcu() functions from the offline CPU. I had an offline discussion
> with Paul McKenney he said don't do that...
>
> mce_gen_pool_add()->gen_pool_alloc() which calls rcu_read_lock() and such.
> So it didn't seem approprite.
How are you ever going to call into those from an offlined CPU?!
And that's easy:
if (!cpu_online(cpu))
return;
> Also the function doesn't seem safe to be called in NMI context. Although
That's why it is a lockless buffer - we added it *exactly* because we didn't
want to call printk in an NMI context. So please expand...
> MCE is different, for all intentional purposes we should treat both as same
> priority. The old style log is simple and tested in those cases.
>
> I like everything you say below... something we could do as our next phase
> of improving logging and might need more careful work to build it right.
>
> just like how MC banks have overwrite rules, we can possibly do something
> like that if the buffer fills up.
Right.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
[Patch V1 1/3] x86, mce: MCE log size not enough for high core parts Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@intel.com> - 2015-09-24 07:00 +0200
[Patch V1 2/3] x86, mce: Refactor parts of mce_log() to reuse when logging from offline CPUs Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@intel.com> - 2015-09-24 07:00 +0200
Re: [Patch V1 1/3] x86, mce: MCE log size not enough for high core parts Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de> - 2015-09-24 17:50 +0200
RE: [Patch V1 1/3] x86, mce: MCE log size not enough for high core parts "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@intel.com> - 2015-09-24 20:50 +0200
Re: [Patch V1 1/3] x86, mce: MCE log size not enough for high core parts Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de> - 2015-09-24 21:00 +0200
RE: [Patch V1 1/3] x86, mce: MCE log size not enough for high core parts "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@intel.com> - 2015-09-24 21:10 +0200
Re: [Patch V1 1/3] x86, mce: MCE log size not enough for high core parts Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de> - 2015-09-24 21:30 +0200
Re: [Patch V1 1/3] x86, mce: MCE log size not enough for high core parts "Raj, Ashok" <ashok.raj@intel.com> - 2015-09-24 22:30 +0200
Re: [Patch V1 1/3] x86, mce: MCE log size not enough for high core parts Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de> - 2015-09-24 23:10 +0200
Re: [Patch V1 1/3] x86, mce: MCE log size not enough for high core parts "Raj, Ashok" <ashok.raj@intel.com> - 2015-09-24 23:30 +0200
Re: [Patch V1 1/3] x86, mce: MCE log size not enough for high core parts Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de> - 2015-09-25 10:30 +0200
Re: [Patch V1 1/3] x86, mce: MCE log size not enough for high core parts "Raj, Ashok" <ashok.raj@intel.com> - 2015-09-25 18:30 +0200
csiph-web