RE: [PATCH v3 1/2] x86, mce, severity: extend the the mce_severity mechanism to handle UCNA/DEFERRED error

2014-11-12 Thread Luck, Tony
> Just as what you said, the severity table entry for the "EN" check > should have been skipped when calling from the CMCI/Poll handler. > As shown below: > >MCESEV( >NO, "Not enabled", >EXCP, BITCLR(MCI_STATUS_EN) >), Yes - that worked. The

Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] x86, mce, severity: extend the the mce_severity mechanism to handle UCNA/DEFERRED error

2014-11-11 Thread Chen Yucong
On Tue, 2014-11-11 at 18:44 +, Luck, Tony wrote: > >> The bank 7 error reported as severity 0 because EN=0 ... so we took no > >> action for it. > > > > How come EN is 0? Bank7 error reporting is not enabled? Why? Or the > > error injection thing doesn't do it? > > The "EN" bit is poorly name

RE: [PATCH v3 1/2] x86, mce, severity: extend the the mce_severity mechanism to handle UCNA/DEFERRED error

2014-11-11 Thread Luck, Tony
>> The bank 7 error reported as severity 0 because EN=0 ... so we took no >> action for it. > > How come EN is 0? Bank7 error reporting is not enabled? Why? Or the > error injection thing doesn't do it? The "EN" bit is poorly named, and not well documented. Here's a clip from the SDM: One of b

Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] x86, mce, severity: extend the the mce_severity mechanism to handle UCNA/DEFERRED error

2014-11-11 Thread Borislav Petkov
On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 11:32:12PM +, Luck, Tony wrote: > But then I tested it ... > > I injected a UC error to memory - then did a simple byte write to the target > line. > This resulted in two banks logging errors: > > [ 124.638045] poll: CPU54 saw ec010092 in bank 7 > [ 124.6390

RE: [PATCH v3 1/2] x86, mce, severity: extend the the mce_severity mechanism to handle UCNA/DEFERRED error

2014-11-10 Thread Luck, Tony
But then I tested it ... I injected a UC error to memory - then did a simple byte write to the target line. This resulted in two banks logging errors: [ 124.638045] poll: CPU54 saw ec010092 in bank 7 [ 124.639006] poll: severity = 0 [ 124.647333] poll: CPU54 saw b8200179 in ba

Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] x86, mce, severity: extend the the mce_severity mechanism to handle UCNA/DEFERRED error

2014-11-10 Thread Aravind Gopalakrishnan
On 11/10/2014 4:17 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote: On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 04:06:00PM -0600, Aravind Gopalakrishnan wrote: + MCESEV( + DEFERRED, "Deferred error", + NOSER, MASK(MCI_STATUS_UC|MCI_STATUS_DEFERRED|MCI_STATUS_POISON, MCI_STATUS_DEFERRED)

Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] x86, mce, severity: extend the the mce_severity mechanism to handle UCNA/DEFERRED error

2014-11-10 Thread Borislav Petkov
On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 04:06:00PM -0600, Aravind Gopalakrishnan wrote: > >+MCESEV( > >+DEFERRED, "Deferred error", > >+NOSER, > >MASK(MCI_STATUS_UC|MCI_STATUS_DEFERRED|MCI_STATUS_POISON, > >MCI_STATUS_DEFERRED) > > ), > > We don't need to have MCI_STATUS_

Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] x86, mce, severity: extend the the mce_severity mechanism to handle UCNA/DEFERRED error

2014-11-10 Thread Aravind Gopalakrishnan
On 11/7/2014 7:40 PM, Chen Yucong wrote: Until now, the mce_severity mechanism can only identify the severity of UCNA error as MCE_KEEP_SEVERITY. Meanwhile, it is not able to filter out DEFERRED error for ADM platform. This patch aims to extend the mce_severity mechanism for handling UCNA/DEFERR