在 2024/7/20 0:04, Dave Jiang 写道:
On 7/1/24 7:12 PM, Shiyang Ruan wrote:
在 2024/6/25 21:56, Shiyang Ruan 写道:
在 2024/6/22 1:51, Dan Williams 写道:
Shiyang Ruan wrote:
Background:
Since CXL device is a memory device, while CPU consumes a poison page of
CXL device, it always triggers a
On 7/1/24 7:12 PM, Shiyang Ruan wrote:
>
>
> 在 2024/6/25 21:56, Shiyang Ruan 写道:
>>
>>
>> 在 2024/6/22 1:51, Dan Williams 写道:
>>> Shiyang Ruan wrote:
Background:
Since CXL device is a memory device, while CPU consumes a poison page of
CXL device, it always triggers a MCE by
在 2024/6/19 0:53, Shiyang Ruan 写道:
This patch adds a new notifier_block and MCE_PRIO_CXL, for CXL memdev
to check whether the current poison page has been reported (if yes,
stop the notifier chain, won't call the following memory_failure()
to report), into `x86_mce_decoder_chain`. In this
在 2024/6/25 21:56, Shiyang Ruan 写道:
在 2024/6/22 1:51, Dan Williams 写道:
Shiyang Ruan wrote:
Background:
Since CXL device is a memory device, while CPU consumes a poison page of
CXL device, it always triggers a MCE by interrupt (INT18), no matter
which-First path is configured. This is the
>> So recovery has some risk, but very little upside benefit.
>
> Since the hardware provides the instruction(CPU)/command(CXL) to clear
> the poison, we could make the function work, at least as an optional
> feature. Then users could decide to use it or not after evaluating the
> risk and
在 2024/6/22 4:44, Luck, Tony 写道:
So who actually cares about recovering poisoned volatile memory?
I'd like to understand more on how significant a use case this is.
Whilst I can conjecture that its an extreme case of wanting to avoid
loosing the ability to create 1GiB or larger pages due to
在 2024/6/22 1:51, Dan Williams 写道:
Shiyang Ruan wrote:
Background:
Since CXL device is a memory device, while CPU consumes a poison page of
CXL device, it always triggers a MCE by interrupt (INT18), no matter
which-First path is configured. This is the first report. Then
currently, in
> So who actually cares about recovering poisoned volatile memory?
> I'd like to understand more on how significant a use case this is.
> Whilst I can conjecture that its an extreme case of wanting to avoid
> loosing the ability to create 1GiB or larger pages due to poison
> is that a real problem
On Fri, 21 Jun 2024 10:59:46 -0700
Dan Williams wrote:
> Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> > On Wed, 19 Jun 2024 00:53:10 +0800
> > Shiyang Ruan wrote:
> >
> > > Background:
> > > Since CXL device is a memory device, while CPU consumes a poison page of
> > > CXL device, it always triggers a MCE by
Shiyang Ruan wrote:
> Background:
> Since CXL device is a memory device, while CPU consumes a poison page of
> CXL device, it always triggers a MCE by interrupt (INT18), no matter
> which-First path is configured. This is the first report. Then
> currently, in FW-First path, the poison event
On Fri, 21 Jun 2024 18:16:33 +0800
Shiyang Ruan wrote:
> 在 2024/6/21 1:02, Jonathan Cameron 写道:
> > On Wed, 19 Jun 2024 00:53:10 +0800
> > Shiyang Ruan wrote:
> >
> >> Background:
> >> Since CXL device is a memory device, while CPU consumes a poison page of
> >> CXL device, it always
在 2024/6/20 23:51, Dave Jiang 写道:
On 6/19/24 2:24 AM, Shiyang Ruan wrote:
在 2024/6/19 7:35, Dave Jiang 写道:
On 6/18/24 9:53 AM, Shiyang Ruan wrote:
Background:
Since CXL device is a memory device, while CPU consumes a poison page of
CXL device, it always triggers a MCE by interrupt
在 2024/6/21 1:02, Jonathan Cameron 写道:
On Wed, 19 Jun 2024 00:53:10 +0800
Shiyang Ruan wrote:
Background:
Since CXL device is a memory device, while CPU consumes a poison page of
CXL device, it always triggers a MCE by interrupt (INT18), no matter
which-First path is configured. This is
On Wed, 19 Jun 2024 00:53:10 +0800
Shiyang Ruan wrote:
> Background:
> Since CXL device is a memory device, while CPU consumes a poison page of
> CXL device, it always triggers a MCE by interrupt (INT18), no matter
> which-First path is configured. This is the first report. Then
>
On 6/19/24 2:24 AM, Shiyang Ruan wrote:
>
>
> 在 2024/6/19 7:35, Dave Jiang 写道:
>>
>>
>> On 6/18/24 9:53 AM, Shiyang Ruan wrote:
>>> Background:
>>> Since CXL device is a memory device, while CPU consumes a poison page of
>>> CXL device, it always triggers a MCE by interrupt (INT18), no matter
在 2024/6/19 7:35, Dave Jiang 写道:
On 6/18/24 9:53 AM, Shiyang Ruan wrote:
Background:
Since CXL device is a memory device, while CPU consumes a poison page of
CXL device, it always triggers a MCE by interrupt (INT18), no matter
which-First path is configured. This is the first report.
On 6/18/24 9:53 AM, Shiyang Ruan wrote:
> Background:
> Since CXL device is a memory device, while CPU consumes a poison page of
> CXL device, it always triggers a MCE by interrupt (INT18), no matter
> which-First path is configured. This is the first report. Then
> currently, in FW-First
Background:
Since CXL device is a memory device, while CPU consumes a poison page of
CXL device, it always triggers a MCE by interrupt (INT18), no matter
which-First path is configured. This is the first report. Then
currently, in FW-First path, the poison event is transferred according
to
18 matches
Mail list logo
