On 7/14/2022 6:19 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
> Jane Chu wrote:
>> I meant to say there would be 8 calls to the nfit_handle_mce() callback,
>> one call for each poison with accurate address.
>>
>> Also, short ARS would find 2 poisons.
>>
>> I attached the console output, my annotation is prefixed with "<==".
>
> [29078.634817] {4}[Hardware Error]: physical_address: 0x00000040a0602600
> <== 2nd poison @ 0x600
> [29078.642200] {4}[Hardware Error]: physical_address_mask:
> 0xffffffffffffff00
>
> Why is nfit_handle_mce() seeing a 4K address mask when the CPER record
> is seeing a 256-byte address mask?
Good question! One would think both GHES reporting and
nfit_handle_mce() are consuming the same mce record...
Who might know?
>
> Sigh, is this "firmware-first" causing the kernel to get bad information
> via the native mechanisms >
> I would expect that if this test was truly worried about minimizing BIOS
> latency it would disable firmware-first error reporting. I wonder if
> that fixes the observed problem?
Could you elaborate on firmware-first error please? What are the
possible consequences disabling it? and how to disable it?
thanks!
-jane
