On Fri, Jan 26, 2024 at 10:01:29PM +, Luck, Tony wrote:
> PPIN: Nice to have. People that send stuff to me are terrible about
> providing surrounding details. The record already includes
> CPUID(1).EAX ... so I can at least skip the step of asking them which
> CPU family/model/stepping they
> But no, that's not the right question to ask.
>
> It is rather: which bits of information are very relevant to an error
> record and which are transient enough so that they cannot be gathered
> from a system by other means or only gathered in a difficult way, and
> should be part of that record.
On Fri, Jan 26, 2024 at 08:49:03PM +, Luck, Tony wrote:
> Every patch that adds new code or data structures adds to the kernel
> memory footprint. Each should be considered on its merits. The basic
> question being:
>
>"Is the new functionality worth the cost?"
>
> Where does it end? It
> > Is it so very different to add this to a trace record so that rasdaemon
> > can have feature parity with mcelog(8)?
>
> I knew you were gonna say that. When someone decides that it is
> a splendid idea to add more stuff to struct mce then said someone would
> want it in the tracepoint too.
>
>
On Fri, Jan 26, 2024 at 07:15:50PM +, Luck, Tony wrote:
> If deployment of a microcode update across a fleet always went
> flawlessly, life would be simpler. But things can fail. And maybe the
> failure wasn't noticed. Perhaps a node was rebooting when the sysadmin
> pushed the update to the
> > You've spent enough time with Ashok and Thomas tweaking the Linux
> > microcode driver to know that going back to the machine the next day
> > to ask about microcode version has a bunch of ways to get a wrong
> > answer.
>
> Huh, what does that have to do with this?
If deployment of a
On Fri, Jan 26, 2024 at 05:10:20PM +, Luck, Tony wrote:
> 12 extra bytes divided by (say) 64GB (a very small server these days, may
> laptop has that much)
>= 0.0001746%
>
> We will need 57000 changes like this one before we get to 0.001% :-)
You're forgetting that those 12 bytes
> > 8 bytes for PPIN, 4 more for microcode.
>
> I know, nothing leads to bloat like 0.01% here, 0.001% there...
12 extra bytes divided by (say) 64GB (a very small server these days, may
laptop has that much)
= 0.0001746%
We will need 57000 changes like this one before we get to 0.001%
On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 07:19:22PM +, Luck, Tony wrote:
> 8 bytes for PPIN, 4 more for microcode.
I know, nothing leads to bloat like 0.01% here, 0.001% there...
> Number of recoverable machine checks per system I hope the
> monthly rate should be countable on my fingers...
That's not
Hi,
On 1/25/2024 1:19 PM, Luck, Tony wrote:
>>> The first patch adds PPIN (Protected Processor Inventory Number) field to
>>> the tracepoint.
>>>
>>> The second patch adds the microcode field (Microcode Revision) to the
>>> tracepoint.
>>
>> This is a lot of static information to add to *every*
> > The first patch adds PPIN (Protected Processor Inventory Number) field to
> > the tracepoint.
> >
> > The second patch adds the microcode field (Microcode Revision) to the
> > tracepoint.
>
> This is a lot of static information to add to *every* MCE.
8 bytes for PPIN, 4 more for microcode.
On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 12:48:55PM -0600, Avadhut Naik wrote:
> This patchset updates the mce_record tracepoint so that the recently added
> fields of struct mce are exported through it to userspace.
>
> The first patch adds PPIN (Protected Processor Inventory Number) field to
> the tracepoint.
>
12 matches
Mail list logo
