Re: [PATCH] x86_64: mcelog tolerant level cleanup

2007-05-18 Thread Tim Hockin

On 5/18/07, Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


>  * If RIPV is set it is not safe to restart, so set the 'no way out'
>flag rather than the 'kill it' flag.

Why? It is not PCC. We cannot return of course, but killing isn't returning.


My understanding is that the absence of RIPV indicates that it is not
safe to restart, period.  Not that the running *task* is not safe* but
that the IP on the stack is not valid to restart at all.


>  * Don't panic() on correctable MCEs.

The idea behind this was that if you get an exception it is always a bit risky
because there are a few potential deadlocks that cannot be avoided.
And normally non UC is just polled which will never cause a panic.
So I don't quite see the value of this change.


It will still always panic when tolerant == 0, and of course you're
right correctable errors would skip over the panic() path anyway.  I
can roll back the "<0" part, though I don't see the difference now :)


> This patch also calls nonseekable_open() in mce_open (as suggested by akpm).

That should be a separate patch


Andrew already sucked it into -mm - do you want me to break it out,
and re-submit?


> + 0: always panic on uncorrected errors, log corrected errors
> + 1: panic or SIGBUS on uncorrected errors, log corrected errors
> + 2: SIGBUS or log uncorrected errors, log corrected errors

Just saying SIGBUS is misleading because it isn't a catchable
signal.


should I change that to "kill" ?


Why did you remove the idle special case?


Because once the other tolerant rules are clarified, it's redundant
for tolerant < 2, and I think it's a bad special case for tolerant ==
2, and it's definately wrong for tolerant == 3.

Shall I re-roll?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/


Re: [PATCH] x86_64: mcelog tolerant level cleanup

2007-05-18 Thread Andi Kleen
On Wednesday 16 May 2007 22:29, Tim Hockin wrote:
> From: Tim Hockin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Background:
>  The MCE handler has several paths that it can take, depending on various
>  conditions of the MCE status and the value of the 'tolerant' knob.  The
>  exact semantics are not well defined and the code is a bit twisty.
>
> Description:
>  This patch makes the MCE handler's behavior more clear by documenting the
>  behavior for various 'tolerant' levels.  It also fixes or enhances
>  several small things in the handler.  Specifically:
>  * If RIPV is set it is not safe to restart, so set the 'no way out'
>flag rather than the 'kill it' flag.

Why? It is not PCC. We cannot return of course, but killing isn't returning.

>  * Don't panic() on correctable MCEs.

The idea behind this was that if you get an exception it is always a bit risky
because there are a few potential deadlocks that cannot be avoided.
And normally non UC is just polled which will never cause a panic.
So I don't quite see the value of this change.

> This patch also calls nonseekable_open() in mce_open (as suggested by akpm).

That should be a separate patch

> + 0: always panic on uncorrected errors, log corrected errors
> + 1: panic or SIGBUS on uncorrected errors, log corrected errors
> + 2: SIGBUS or log uncorrected errors, log corrected errors

Just saying SIGBUS is misleading because it isn't a catchable
signal.



> +
> + /*
> +  * If the error seems to be unrecoverable, something should be
> +  * done.  Try to kill as little as possible.  If we can kill just
> +  * one task, do that.  If the user has set the tolerance very
> +  * high, don't try to do anything at all.
> +  */
> + if (kill_it && tolerant < 3) {
>   int user_space = 0;
>
> - if (m.mcgstatus & MCG_STATUS_RIPV)
> + /*
> +  * If the EIPV bit is set, it means the saved IP is the
> +  * instruction which caused the MCE.
> +  */
> + if (m.mcgstatus & MCG_STATUS_EIPV)
>   user_space = panicm.rip && (panicm.cs & 3);
> -
> - /* When the machine was in user space and the CPU didn't get
> -confused it's normally not necessary to panic, unless you
> -are paranoid (tolerant == 0)
> -
> -RED-PEN could be more tolerant for MCEs in idle,
> -but most likely they occur at boot anyways, where
> -it is best to just halt the machine. */
> - if ((!user_space && (panic_on_oops || tolerant < 2)) ||
> - (unsigned)current->pid <= 1)
> - mce_panic("Uncorrected machine check", &panicm, 
> mcestart);
> -
> - /* do_exit takes an awful lot of locks and has as
> -slight risk of deadlocking. If you don't want that
> -don't set tolerant >= 2 */
> - if (tolerant < 3)
> +
> + /*
> +  * If we know that the error was in user space, send a
> +  * SIGBUS.  Otherwise, panic if tolerance is low.
> +  *
> +  * do_exit() takes an awful lot of locks and has a slight
> +  * risk of deadlocking.
> +  */
> + if (user_space) {
>   do_exit(SIGBUS);
> + } else if (panic_on_oops || tolerant < 2) {
> + mce_panic("Uncorrected machine check",
> + &panicm, mcestart);
> + }

Why did you remove the idle special case?


-Andi
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/