From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757093Ab1DLU3B (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Apr 2011 16:29:01 -0400 Received: from mail.skyhub.de ([78.46.96.112]:40254 "EHLO mail.skyhub.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754019Ab1DLU3A (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Apr 2011 16:29:00 -0400 Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 22:28:54 +0200 From: Borislav Petkov To: Prarit Bhargava Cc: "Luck, Tony" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "dzickus@redhat.com" , "mstowe@redhat.com" , "dnelson@redhat.com" Subject: Re: [PATCH]: mce: don't print "human readable" message for corrected errors Message-ID: <20110412202854.GA32200@liondog.tnic> Mail-Followup-To: Borislav Petkov , Prarit Bhargava , "Luck, Tony" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "dzickus@redhat.com" , "mstowe@redhat.com" , "dnelson@redhat.com" References: <20110412174405.26867.65604.sendpatchset@prarit.bos.redhat.com> <20110412185842.GB9891@liondog.tnic> <987664A83D2D224EAE907B061CE93D5301A9629BD5@orsmsx505.amr.corp.intel.com> <4DA4B2EA.5050303@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4DA4B2EA.5050303@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 04:15:38PM -0400, Prarit Bhargava wrote: > > > We are also setting TAINT_MACHINE_CHECK for corrected errors - perhaps > > this made sense when systems were small and machine checks were rare and > > scary. But I think we need to start working with the reality that > > corrected errors are normal events. > > > > > > It still makes sense for small lt 1TB systems, IMO. But ... maybe a > flag of some sort is necessary to stop the TAINTing for systems larger > than that. The CEs may point to something going wrong on a system. CEs > in theory become UCEs eventually, right? > > From a OS point of view, we would like to know that there is flaky HW on > the system. > > /me knows this is going to turn into a PFA discussion in 4 ... 3 ... 2 > .... ;) Yeah, there's the TAINT thing too, good point Tony. Well, we definitely don't want to get tainted for correctable errors - they're too "normal" to do so, IMHO. I'm thinking remove the TAINT for CEs and don't call the default notifier if it is the only notifier call registered. Maybe something like if (num_notifiers(&x86_mce_decoder_chain) > 1) atomic_notifier_call_chain(&x86_mce_decoder_chain, 0, &m); or since the notifiers are priority sorted, don't call notifiers with -1 prio. Or something to that effect. -- Regards/Gruss, Boris.