Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1232372
| 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 21:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <qcknn-3W1-1@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <qc6Nr-1bh-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <qcgWu-7mP-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <qcjKG-2WY-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <qcjUm-389-13@gated-at.bofh.it> <qck41-3yV-15@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 07:00:46PM +0000, Luck, Tony wrote:
> > If we get new ones logged in the meantime and userspace hasn't managed
> > to consume and delete the present ones yet, we overwrite the oldest ones
> > and set MCE_OVERFLOW like mce_log does now for mcelog. And that's no
> > difference in functionality than what we have now.
>
> Ummmm. No.
>
> for (;;) {
>
> /*
> * When the buffer fills up discard new entries.
> * Assume that the earlier errors are the more
> * interesting ones:
> */
> if (entry >= MCE_LOG_LEN) {
> set_bit(MCE_OVERFLOW,
> (unsigned long *)&mcelog.flags);
> return;
> }
Ah, we return. But we shouldn't return - we should overwrite. I believe
we've talked about the policy of overwriting old errors with new ones.
TBH, I don't think there's a 100%-correct policy to act according to
when our error logging buffers are full:
- we can overwrite old errors with new but then this way we might lose
the one important error record with which it all started.
- if we don't overwrite, we might fill up with "unimportant" correctable
error records and miss other, more important ones which happen now
- ...
We could try to implement some cheap heuristics which decide what and
when to overwrite but I'm sceptical it'll be always correct...
--
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