On 4/9/2013 12:24 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 11:45:44AM +0200, Steffen Persvold wrote:
Hmm, yes of course. This of course breaks on our slave servers when
the shared mechanism doesn't work properly (i.e NB not visible). Then
all cores gets individual kobjects and there ca
On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 11:45:44AM +0200, Steffen Persvold wrote:
> Hmm, yes of course. This of course breaks on our slave servers when
> the shared mechanism doesn't work properly (i.e NB not visible). Then
> all cores gets individual kobjects and there can be discrepancies
> between what the hard
On 4/9/2013 11:38 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 11:25:16AM +0200, Steffen Persvold wrote:
Why not let all cores just create their individual kobject and skip
this "shared" nb->bank4 concept ? Any disadvantage to that (apart from
the obvious storage bloat?).
Well, bank4 is
On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 11:25:16AM +0200, Steffen Persvold wrote:
> Why not let all cores just create their individual kobject and skip
> this "shared" nb->bank4 concept ? Any disadvantage to that (apart from
> the obvious storage bloat?).
Well, bank4 is shared across cores on the northbridge in *
On 4/4/2013 9:07 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 08:05:46PM +0200, Steffen Persvold wrote:
It made more sense (to me) to skip the creation of MC4 all together
if you can't find the matching northbridge since you can't reliably
do the dec_and_test() reference counting on the sh
On 4/4/2013 9:07 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 08:05:46PM +0200, Steffen Persvold wrote:
It made more sense (to me) to skip the creation of MC4 all together
if you can't find the matching northbridge since you can't reliably
do the dec_and_test() reference counting on the sh
On 4/4/2013 6:13 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 11:52:00PM +0800, Daniel J Blueman wrote:
>> On platforms where all Northbridges may not be visible (due to routing, eg on
>> NumaConnect systems), prevent oopsing due to stale pointer access when
>> offlining cores.
>>
>> Signed
On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 08:05:46PM +0200, Steffen Persvold wrote:
> It made more sense (to me) to skip the creation of MC4 all together
> if you can't find the matching northbridge since you can't reliably
> do the dec_and_test() reference counting on the shared bank when you
> don't have the commo
On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 11:52:00PM +0800, Daniel J Blueman wrote:
> On platforms where all Northbridges may not be visible (due to routing, eg on
> NumaConnect systems), prevent oopsing due to stale pointer access when
> offlining cores.
>
> Signed-off-by: Steffen Persvold
> Signed-off-by: Daniel
+ if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!nb))
+ goto out;
+
WARN_ON_ONCE() will drop a stack trace to the console - is that going to be
useful?
If you want a message perhaps:
if (!nb) {
printk_once("something interesting about not having
a
On platforms where all Northbridges may not be visible (due to routing, eg on
NumaConnect systems), prevent oopsing due to stale pointer access when
offlining cores.
Signed-off-by: Steffen Persvold
Signed-off-by: Daniel J Blueman
---
arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce_amd.c | 11 ++-
1 f
11 matches
Mail list logo
