Re: [PATCH 22/25] x86/mcheck: Do the init in one place

2016-11-10 Thread Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
On 2016-11-10 11:22:22 [+0100], Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > Why on earth do we enable MCE stuff in identify_cpu() ? so it happens asap. Boris' mail in this thread: |Uh, hm, I'm not sure about this: so the issue I see with this is that |the more we're delaying the enabling or MCE reporting - and es

Re: [PATCH 22/25] x86/mcheck: Do the init in one place

2016-11-10 Thread Thomas Gleixner
On Thu, 10 Nov 2016, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > On 2016-11-09 18:37:23 [+], Luck, Tony wrote: > > > That's why the hotplug callback mce_disable_cpu() doesn't fiddle with > > > CR4 - it only clears the bits in MCi_CTL. And I think we should remain > > > that way. > > > > N.B. See vendo

Re: [PATCH 22/25] x86/mcheck: Do the init in one place

2016-11-10 Thread Borislav Petkov
On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 10:00:38AM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > okay. So I had a discussion with Boris and we agreed that we don't do > the init part in one place only the timer stuff will be moved. > If I understand Tony correctly then we undo something in > vendor_disable_error_repor

Re: [PATCH 22/25] x86/mcheck: Do the init in one place

2016-11-10 Thread Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
On 2016-11-09 18:37:23 [+], Luck, Tony wrote: > > That's why the hotplug callback mce_disable_cpu() doesn't fiddle with > > CR4 - it only clears the bits in MCi_CTL. And I think we should remain > > that way. > > N.B. See vendor_disable_error_reporting() ... on Intel we don't clear MCi_CTL. o

RE: [PATCH 22/25] x86/mcheck: Do the init in one place

2016-11-09 Thread Luck, Tony
> That's why the hotplug callback mce_disable_cpu() doesn't fiddle with > CR4 - it only clears the bits in MCi_CTL. And I think we should remain > that way. N.B. See vendor_disable_error_reporting() ... on Intel we don't clear MCi_CTL. -Tony

Re: [PATCH 22/25] x86/mcheck: Do the init in one place

2016-11-09 Thread Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
On 2016-11-09 18:01:09 [+0100], Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 05:24:51PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > > The behaviour was not changed - it was only reorganized to keep in one > > spot. > > So there's the full CPU init path down cpu_up() -> ... -> identify_cpu() > wh

Re: [PATCH 22/25] x86/mcheck: Do the init in one place

2016-11-09 Thread Borislav Petkov
On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 05:24:51PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > The behaviour was not changed - it was only reorganized to keep in one > spot. So there's the full CPU init path down cpu_up() -> ... -> identify_cpu() where mcheck_cpu_init() is called and then there's also the hotplug c

Re: [PATCH 22/25] x86/mcheck: Do the init in one place

2016-11-09 Thread Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
On 2016-11-09 16:38:07 [+0100], Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 03:22:21PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > > I want to get rid of non-symmetrical part and the arch hook which should > > be part of the hp notifier itself. I wouldn't be too much afraid about > > the when po

Re: [PATCH 22/25] x86/mcheck: Do the init in one place

2016-11-09 Thread Borislav Petkov
On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 03:22:21PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > I want to get rid of non-symmetrical part and the arch hook which should > be part of the hp notifier itself. I wouldn't be too much afraid about > the when point in time when the notifier runs: It is the *first* > notifie

Re: [PATCH 22/25] x86/mcheck: Do the init in one place

2016-11-09 Thread Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
On 2016-11-08 10:23:02 [+0100], Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Mon, Nov 07, 2016 at 09:12:24PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 07, 2016 at 10:55:24AM -0800, Luck, Tony wrote: > > > I don't think that helps as much as you'd like it to help (at > > > least on Intel). A broadcast machine ch

Re: [PATCH 22/25] x86/mcheck: Do the init in one place

2016-11-08 Thread Borislav Petkov
On Mon, Nov 07, 2016 at 09:12:24PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Mon, Nov 07, 2016 at 10:55:24AM -0800, Luck, Tony wrote: > > I don't think that helps as much as you'd like it to help (at > > least on Intel). A broadcast machine check that finds the boot > > CPU has set CR4[MCE]=1 is still goi

Re: [PATCH 22/25] x86/mcheck: Do the init in one place

2016-11-07 Thread Borislav Petkov
On Mon, Nov 07, 2016 at 10:55:24AM -0800, Luck, Tony wrote: > I don't think that helps as much as you'd like it to help (at > least on Intel). A broadcast machine check that finds the boot > CPU has set CR4[MCE]=1 is still going to end up in reset if any > other CPU still has CR4[MCE]=0 By leaving

Re: [PATCH 22/25] x86/mcheck: Do the init in one place

2016-11-07 Thread Luck, Tony
On Mon, Nov 07, 2016 at 07:45:32PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Thu, Nov 03, 2016 at 03:50:18PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > > Part of the init (memory allocation and so on) is done > > in mcheck_cpu_init(). While moving the the allocation to > > mcheck_init_device() (where the h

Re: [PATCH 22/25] x86/mcheck: Do the init in one place

2016-11-07 Thread Borislav Petkov
On Thu, Nov 03, 2016 at 03:50:18PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > Part of the init (memory allocation and so on) is done > in mcheck_cpu_init(). While moving the the allocation to > mcheck_init_device() (where the hotplug calls are initialized) it > becomes necessary to move the callback

[PATCH 22/25] x86/mcheck: Do the init in one place

2016-11-03 Thread Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
Part of the init (memory allocation and so on) is done in mcheck_cpu_init(). While moving the the allocation to mcheck_init_device() (where the hotplug calls are initialized) it becomes necessary to move the callback (mcheck_cpu_init()), too. The callback is now removed from identify_cpu() and reg