> So that "system hang or panic" which the validation folks triggered,
> that cannot be reproduced anymore? Did they run the latest version of
> the patch?
I will get the validation folks to run the latest version (and play around with
hyperthreading if they see problems).
-Tony
On Tue, Feb 02, 2021 at 04:04:17PM +, Luck, Tony wrote:
> > And the much more important question is, what is the code supposed to
> > do when that overflow *actually* happens in real life? Because IINM,
> > an overflow condition on the same page would mean killing the task to
> > contain the
> And the much more important question is, what is the code supposed to
> do when that overflow *actually* happens in real life? Because IINM,
> an overflow condition on the same page would mean killing the task to
> contain the error and not killing the machine...
Correct. The cases I've
On Mon, Feb 01, 2021 at 10:58:12AM -0800, Luck, Tony wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 06:57:35PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > Crazy idea: if you still can reproduce on -rc3, you could bisect: i.e.,
> > if you apply the patch on -rc3 and it explodes and if you apply the same
> > patch on -rc5
On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 06:57:35PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> Crazy idea: if you still can reproduce on -rc3, you could bisect: i.e.,
> if you apply the patch on -rc3 and it explodes and if you apply the same
> patch on -rc5 and it works, then that could be a start... Yeah, don't
> have a
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 02:36:05PM -0800, Luck, Tony wrote:
> In some cases Linux might context switch to something else. Perhaps
> this task even gets picked up by another CPU to run the task work
> queued functions. But I imagine that the context switch should act
> as a barrier ... shouldn't
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 12:03:14PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 02:55:09PM -0800, Luck, Tony wrote:
> > And now I've changed it back to non-atomic (but keeping the
> > slightly cleaner looking code style that I used for the atomic
> > version). This one also works for
On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 02:55:09PM -0800, Luck, Tony wrote:
> And now I've changed it back to non-atomic (but keeping the
> slightly cleaner looking code style that I used for the atomic
> version). This one also works for thousands of injections and
> recoveries. Maybe take it now before it
On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 01:09:59PM -0800, Luck, Tony wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 01:18:12PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> But, on a whim, I changed the type of mce_count from "int" to "atomic_t" and
> fixeed up the increment & clear to use atomic_inc_return() and atomic_set().
> See updated
9 matches
Mail list logo
