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 majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
