Re: [PATCH v2 4/7] ghes_edac: avoid multiple calls to dmi_walk()

On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 09:08:40PM +, Kani, Toshimitsu wrote: > 1. It creates mc0 and mc1.   > I think this is because you called edac_mc_alloc() with mc_num 1. Fixed, see below. > > 2. 'ras-mc-ctl --layout' does not show all DIMMs. Yap, that's strange. $ grep .

Re: [PATCH v2 4/7] ghes_edac: avoid multiple calls to dmi_walk()

On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 09:08:40PM +, Kani, Toshimitsu wrote: > 1. It creates mc0 and mc1.   > I think this is because you called edac_mc_alloc() with mc_num 1. Fixed, see below. > > 2. 'ras-mc-ctl --layout' does not show all DIMMs. Yap, that's strange. $ grep .

Re: [PATCH v2 4/7] ghes_edac: avoid multiple calls to dmi_walk()

On Wed, 2017-08-16 at 11:51 -0600, Toshi Kani wrote: > On Wed, 2017-08-16 at 19:40 +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 05:28:50PM +, Kani, Toshimitsu wrote: : > > > I will test the patch with an SCI when I got a chance.  I won't > > > be able to test other notification

Re: [PATCH v2 4/7] ghes_edac: avoid multiple calls to dmi_walk()

On Wed, 2017-08-16 at 11:51 -0600, Toshi Kani wrote: > On Wed, 2017-08-16 at 19:40 +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 05:28:50PM +, Kani, Toshimitsu wrote: : > > > I will test the patch with an SCI when I got a chance.  I won't > > > be able to test other notification

Re: [PATCH v2 4/7] ghes_edac: avoid multiple calls to dmi_walk()

On Wed, 2017-08-16 at 19:40 +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 05:28:50PM +, Kani, Toshimitsu wrote: > > Assuming this big spinlock works, yes, this addresses my concern > > that > > You mean, lengthy locked section. We can always switch to on-stack > buffers if there are

Re: [PATCH v2 4/7] ghes_edac: avoid multiple calls to dmi_walk()

On Wed, 2017-08-16 at 19:40 +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 05:28:50PM +, Kani, Toshimitsu wrote: > > Assuming this big spinlock works, yes, this addresses my concern > > that > > You mean, lengthy locked section. We can always switch to on-stack > buffers if there are

Re: [PATCH v2 4/7] ghes_edac: avoid multiple calls to dmi_walk()

On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 05:28:50PM +, Kani, Toshimitsu wrote: > Assuming this big spinlock works, yes, this addresses my concern that You mean, lengthy locked section. We can always switch to on-stack buffers if there are issues or even to something more fancy like genpool. > I will test the

Re: [PATCH v2 4/7] ghes_edac: avoid multiple calls to dmi_walk()

On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 05:28:50PM +, Kani, Toshimitsu wrote: > Assuming this big spinlock works, yes, this addresses my concern that You mean, lengthy locked section. We can always switch to on-stack buffers if there are issues or even to something more fancy like genpool. > I will test the

Re: [PATCH v2 4/7] ghes_edac: avoid multiple calls to dmi_walk()

On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 10:22:49AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > Maybe keep that original mutex just in case. Let's do the elegant thing: --- diff --git a/drivers/edac/ghes_edac.c b/drivers/edac/ghes_edac.c index d4089c2980ef..386e04a7bda0 100644 --- a/drivers/edac/ghes_edac.c +++

Re: [PATCH v2 4/7] ghes_edac: avoid multiple calls to dmi_walk()

On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 10:22:49AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > Maybe keep that original mutex just in case. Let's do the elegant thing: --- diff --git a/drivers/edac/ghes_edac.c b/drivers/edac/ghes_edac.c index d4089c2980ef..386e04a7bda0 100644 --- a/drivers/edac/ghes_edac.c +++

Re: [PATCH v2 4/7] ghes_edac: avoid multiple calls to dmi_walk()

On Wed, 2017-08-16 at 18:42 +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 03:26:04PM +, Kani, Toshimitsu wrote: > > I believe you now need to protect from a race condition that a > > single mci and pvt can be initialized / consumed from multiple > > threads.  This protection is

Re: [PATCH v2 4/7] ghes_edac: avoid multiple calls to dmi_walk()

On Wed, 2017-08-16 at 18:42 +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 03:26:04PM +, Kani, Toshimitsu wrote: > > I believe you now need to protect from a race condition that a > > single mci and pvt can be initialized / consumed from multiple > > threads.  This protection is

Re: [PATCH v2 4/7] ghes_edac: avoid multiple calls to dmi_walk()

On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 03:26:04PM +, Kani, Toshimitsu wrote: > I believe you now need to protect from a race condition that a single > mci and pvt can be initialized / consumed from multiple threads. This > protection is missing in your patch. Easy. Done. --- diff --git

Re: [PATCH v2 4/7] ghes_edac: avoid multiple calls to dmi_walk()

On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 03:26:04PM +, Kani, Toshimitsu wrote: > I believe you now need to protect from a race condition that a single > mci and pvt can be initialized / consumed from multiple threads. This > protection is missing in your patch. Easy. Done. --- diff --git

Re: [PATCH v2 4/7] ghes_edac: avoid multiple calls to dmi_walk()

On Wed, 2017-08-16 at 10:29 +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 08:48:16AM -0700, Luck, Tony wrote: > > Won't the user see all their DIMMs reported for each memory > > controller > > under /sys/devices/system/edac/mc/mc*/dimm* ? > > > > That sounds confusing. > > Right, and

Re: [PATCH v2 4/7] ghes_edac: avoid multiple calls to dmi_walk()

On Wed, 2017-08-16 at 10:29 +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 08:48:16AM -0700, Luck, Tony wrote: > > Won't the user see all their DIMMs reported for each memory > > controller > > under /sys/devices/system/edac/mc/mc*/dimm* ? > > > > That sounds confusing. > > Right, and

Re: [PATCH v2 4/7] ghes_edac: avoid multiple calls to dmi_walk()

On Wed, 16 Aug 2017 16:03:50 +0200 Borislav Petkov wrote: > > What's the likelihood of two calls to ghes_edac_register being done > > simultaneously? Because two calls at the same time will get past this. > > Well, that thing gets called per GHES platform device and last time

Re: [PATCH v2 4/7] ghes_edac: avoid multiple calls to dmi_walk()

On Wed, 16 Aug 2017 16:03:50 +0200 Borislav Petkov wrote: > > What's the likelihood of two calls to ghes_edac_register being done > > simultaneously? Because two calls at the same time will get past this. > > Well, that thing gets called per GHES platform device and last time I > checked

Re: [PATCH v2 4/7] ghes_edac: avoid multiple calls to dmi_walk()

On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 09:59:01AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > Should the above be: > > if (WARN_ON_ONCE(in_nmi())) > return; > > To prevent a deadlock? Or do we not care? Yeah, better this way. > What's the likelihood of two calls to ghes_edac_register being done >

Re: [PATCH v2 4/7] ghes_edac: avoid multiple calls to dmi_walk()

On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 09:59:01AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > Should the above be: > > if (WARN_ON_ONCE(in_nmi())) > return; > > To prevent a deadlock? Or do we not care? Yeah, better this way. > What's the likelihood of two calls to ghes_edac_register being done >

Re: [PATCH v2 4/7] ghes_edac: avoid multiple calls to dmi_walk()

On Wed, 16 Aug 2017 10:29:31 +0200 Borislav Petkov wrote: > --- > diff --git a/drivers/edac/ghes_edac.c b/drivers/edac/ghes_edac.c > index 6f80eb65c26c..a22fabef4791 100644 > --- a/drivers/edac/ghes_edac.c > +++ b/drivers/edac/ghes_edac.c > @@ -28,10 +28,14 @@ struct

Re: [PATCH v2 4/7] ghes_edac: avoid multiple calls to dmi_walk()

On Wed, 16 Aug 2017 10:29:31 +0200 Borislav Petkov wrote: > --- > diff --git a/drivers/edac/ghes_edac.c b/drivers/edac/ghes_edac.c > index 6f80eb65c26c..a22fabef4791 100644 > --- a/drivers/edac/ghes_edac.c > +++ b/drivers/edac/ghes_edac.c > @@ -28,10 +28,14 @@ struct ghes_edac_pvt { >

Re: [PATCH v2 4/7] ghes_edac: avoid multiple calls to dmi_walk()

On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 10:29:31AM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote: > Anyway, I think I have a box to run it to, lemme go find it. Seems to boot. It's a whole another story whether it actually works. :-) Need some EINJ capabilities urgently but finding a box where it works reliably is like finding

Re: [PATCH v2 4/7] ghes_edac: avoid multiple calls to dmi_walk()

On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 10:29:31AM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote: > Anyway, I think I have a box to run it to, lemme go find it. Seems to boot. It's a whole another story whether it actually works. :-) Need some EINJ capabilities urgently but finding a box where it works reliably is like finding

Re: [PATCH v2 4/7] ghes_edac: avoid multiple calls to dmi_walk()

On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 08:48:16AM -0700, Luck, Tony wrote: > Won't the user see all their DIMMs reported for each memory controller > under /sys/devices/system/edac/mc/mc*/dimm* ? > > That sounds confusing. Right, and adding the locking was really easy. If only people would debate less and

Re: [PATCH v2 4/7] ghes_edac: avoid multiple calls to dmi_walk()

On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 08:48:16AM -0700, Luck, Tony wrote: > Won't the user see all their DIMMs reported for each memory controller > under /sys/devices/system/edac/mc/mc*/dimm* ? > > That sounds confusing. Right, and adding the locking was really easy. If only people would debate less and

Re: [PATCH v2 4/7] ghes_edac: avoid multiple calls to dmi_walk()

On Tue, 2017-08-15 at 17:50 +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 03:35:51PM +, Kani, Toshimitsu wrote: > > ghes_edac instantiates an mci as a pseudo device representing a > > GHES error source.  Each error source associates with all DIMMs, > > and may report errors

Re: [PATCH v2 4/7] ghes_edac: avoid multiple calls to dmi_walk()

On Tue, 2017-08-15 at 17:50 +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 03:35:51PM +, Kani, Toshimitsu wrote: > > ghes_edac instantiates an mci as a pseudo device representing a > > GHES error source.  Each error source associates with all DIMMs, > > and may report errors

Re: [PATCH v2 4/7] ghes_edac: avoid multiple calls to dmi_walk()

On Tue, 2017-08-15 at 08:48 -0700, Luck, Tony wrote: > On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 08:35:51AM -0700, Kani, Toshimitsu wrote: > > User apps like ras-mc-ctl works as expected for a given (not-so- > > great) DIMM info from SMBIOS as well.  I do not see a probelm from > > user perspective, either. > >

Re: [PATCH v2 4/7] ghes_edac: avoid multiple calls to dmi_walk()

On Tue, 2017-08-15 at 08:48 -0700, Luck, Tony wrote: > On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 08:35:51AM -0700, Kani, Toshimitsu wrote: > > User apps like ras-mc-ctl works as expected for a given (not-so- > > great) DIMM info from SMBIOS as well.  I do not see a probelm from > > user perspective, either. > >

Re: [PATCH v2 4/7] ghes_edac: avoid multiple calls to dmi_walk()

On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 03:35:51PM +, Kani, Toshimitsu wrote: > ghes_edac instantiates an mci as a pseudo device representing a GHES > error source. Each error source associates with all DIMMs, and may > report errors independently. As ghes_edac is an GHES error-reporting > wrapper to edac,

Re: [PATCH v2 4/7] ghes_edac: avoid multiple calls to dmi_walk()

On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 03:35:51PM +, Kani, Toshimitsu wrote: > ghes_edac instantiates an mci as a pseudo device representing a GHES > error source. Each error source associates with all DIMMs, and may > report errors independently. As ghes_edac is an GHES error-reporting > wrapper to edac,

Re: [PATCH v2 4/7] ghes_edac: avoid multiple calls to dmi_walk()

On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 08:35:51AM -0700, Kani, Toshimitsu wrote: > User apps like ras-mc-ctl works as expected for a given (not-so-great) > DIMM info from SMBIOS as well. I do not see a probelm from user > perspective, either. Won't the user see all their DIMMs reported for each memory

Re: [PATCH v2 4/7] ghes_edac: avoid multiple calls to dmi_walk()

On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 08:35:51AM -0700, Kani, Toshimitsu wrote: > User apps like ras-mc-ctl works as expected for a given (not-so-great) > DIMM info from SMBIOS as well. I do not see a probelm from user > perspective, either. Won't the user see all their DIMMs reported for each memory

Re: [PATCH v2 4/7] ghes_edac: avoid multiple calls to dmi_walk()

On Mon, 2017-08-14 at 22:39 +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 08:17:54PM +, Kani, Toshimitsu wrote: > > I think the current code design of allocating mci & ghes_edac_pvt > > for each GHES source entry makes sense. > > And I don't. > > > edac_raw_mc_handle_error() also

Re: [PATCH v2 4/7] ghes_edac: avoid multiple calls to dmi_walk()

On Mon, 2017-08-14 at 22:39 +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 08:17:54PM +, Kani, Toshimitsu wrote: > > I think the current code design of allocating mci & ghes_edac_pvt > > for each GHES source entry makes sense. > > And I don't. > > > edac_raw_mc_handle_error() also

Re: [PATCH v2 4/7] ghes_edac: avoid multiple calls to dmi_walk()

On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 08:17:54PM +, Kani, Toshimitsu wrote: > I think the current code design of allocating mci & ghes_edac_pvt for > each GHES source entry makes sense. And I don't. > edac_raw_mc_handle_error() also has the same expectation that the call > is serialized per mci. There's

Re: [PATCH v2 4/7] ghes_edac: avoid multiple calls to dmi_walk()

On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 08:17:54PM +, Kani, Toshimitsu wrote: > I think the current code design of allocating mci & ghes_edac_pvt for > each GHES source entry makes sense. And I don't. > edac_raw_mc_handle_error() also has the same expectation that the call > is serialized per mci. There's

Re: [PATCH v2 4/7] ghes_edac: avoid multiple calls to dmi_walk()

On Mon, 2017-08-14 at 21:34 +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 07:02:15PM +, Kani, Toshimitsu wrote: > > I do not know how likely we see such case, but the code should be > > written according to the spec. > > Well, then you'll have to make ghes_edac_report_mem_error() >

Re: [PATCH v2 4/7] ghes_edac: avoid multiple calls to dmi_walk()

On Mon, 2017-08-14 at 21:34 +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 07:02:15PM +, Kani, Toshimitsu wrote: > > I do not know how likely we see such case, but the code should be > > written according to the spec. > > Well, then you'll have to make ghes_edac_report_mem_error() >

Re: [PATCH v2 4/7] ghes_edac: avoid multiple calls to dmi_walk()

On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 07:02:15PM +, Kani, Toshimitsu wrote: > I do not know how likely we see such case, but the code should be > written according to the spec. Well, then you'll have to make ghes_edac_report_mem_error() reentrant. Which doesn't look that hard as the only thing it really

Re: [PATCH v2 4/7] ghes_edac: avoid multiple calls to dmi_walk()

On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 07:02:15PM +, Kani, Toshimitsu wrote: > I do not know how likely we see such case, but the code should be > written according to the spec. Well, then you'll have to make ghes_edac_report_mem_error() reentrant. Which doesn't look that hard as the only thing it really

Re: [PATCH v2 4/7] ghes_edac: avoid multiple calls to dmi_walk()

On Mon, 2017-08-14 at 20:35 +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 06:17:47PM +, Kani, Toshimitsu wrote: > > Right, ghes_edac_report_mem_error() gets serialized per a GHES > > entry, but not globally. > > Globally what? GHES v2's ACK is not a global lock. So, it does not

Re: [PATCH v2 4/7] ghes_edac: avoid multiple calls to dmi_walk()

On Mon, 2017-08-14 at 20:35 +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 06:17:47PM +, Kani, Toshimitsu wrote: > > Right, ghes_edac_report_mem_error() gets serialized per a GHES > > entry, but not globally. > > Globally what? GHES v2's ACK is not a global lock. So, it does not

Re: [PATCH v2 4/7] ghes_edac: avoid multiple calls to dmi_walk()

On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 06:17:47PM +, Kani, Toshimitsu wrote: > Right, ghes_edac_report_mem_error() gets serialized per a GHES entry, > but not globally. Globally what? What is the actual potential scenario for concurrency issues you see? Example pls. -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. Good

Re: [PATCH v2 4/7] ghes_edac: avoid multiple calls to dmi_walk()

On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 06:17:47PM +, Kani, Toshimitsu wrote: > Right, ghes_edac_report_mem_error() gets serialized per a GHES entry, > but not globally. Globally what? What is the actual potential scenario for concurrency issues you see? Example pls. -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. Good

Re: [PATCH v2 4/7] ghes_edac: avoid multiple calls to dmi_walk()

On Mon, 2017-08-14 at 20:05 +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 05:52:25PM +, Kani, Toshimitsu wrote: > > Yes, but this ACK is done per a GHES entry as well. > > So is the ghes_edac_report_mem_error() call. Right, ghes_edac_report_mem_error() gets serialized per a GHES

Re: [PATCH v2 4/7] ghes_edac: avoid multiple calls to dmi_walk()

On Mon, 2017-08-14 at 20:05 +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 05:52:25PM +, Kani, Toshimitsu wrote: > > Yes, but this ACK is done per a GHES entry as well. > > So is the ghes_edac_report_mem_error() call. Right, ghes_edac_report_mem_error() gets serialized per a GHES

Re: [PATCH v2 4/7] ghes_edac: avoid multiple calls to dmi_walk()

On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 05:52:25PM +, Kani, Toshimitsu wrote: > Yes, but this ACK is done per a GHES entry as well. So is the ghes_edac_report_mem_error() call. -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.

Re: [PATCH v2 4/7] ghes_edac: avoid multiple calls to dmi_walk()

On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 05:52:25PM +, Kani, Toshimitsu wrote: > Yes, but this ACK is done per a GHES entry as well. So is the ghes_edac_report_mem_error() call. -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.

Re: [PATCH v2 4/7] ghes_edac: avoid multiple calls to dmi_walk()

On Mon, 2017-08-14 at 19:05 +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 04:48:57PM +, Kani, Toshimitsu wrote: > > Right, but the issue is how [ghes_edac_]report_mem_error() protects > > from possible concurrent calls from multiple GHES sources when > > there is only a single mci. >

Re: [PATCH v2 4/7] ghes_edac: avoid multiple calls to dmi_walk()

On Mon, 2017-08-14 at 19:05 +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 04:48:57PM +, Kani, Toshimitsu wrote: > > Right, but the issue is how [ghes_edac_]report_mem_error() protects > > from possible concurrent calls from multiple GHES sources when > > there is only a single mci. >

Re: [PATCH v2 4/7] ghes_edac: avoid multiple calls to dmi_walk()

On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 04:48:57PM +, Kani, Toshimitsu wrote: > Right, but the issue is how [ghes_edac_]report_mem_error() protects > from possible concurrent calls from multiple GHES sources when there is > only a single mci. Do you know of an actual firmware reporting multiple errors

Re: [PATCH v2 4/7] ghes_edac: avoid multiple calls to dmi_walk()

On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 04:48:57PM +, Kani, Toshimitsu wrote: > Right, but the issue is how [ghes_edac_]report_mem_error() protects > from possible concurrent calls from multiple GHES sources when there is > only a single mci. Do you know of an actual firmware reporting multiple errors

Re: [PATCH v2 4/7] ghes_edac: avoid multiple calls to dmi_walk()

On Mon, 2017-08-14 at 18:24 +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 03:57:35PM +, Kani, Toshimitsu wrote: > > Hmm... Sorry, I failed to see how your patchset solved it.  Would > > you mind to explain how it is done? > > +static int __init ghes_edac_register(void) >  { > +  

Re: [PATCH v2 4/7] ghes_edac: avoid multiple calls to dmi_walk()

On Mon, 2017-08-14 at 18:24 +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 03:57:35PM +, Kani, Toshimitsu wrote: > > Hmm... Sorry, I failed to see how your patchset solved it.  Would > > you mind to explain how it is done? > > +static int __init ghes_edac_register(void) >  { > +  

Re: [PATCH v2 4/7] ghes_edac: avoid multiple calls to dmi_walk()

On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 03:57:35PM +, Kani, Toshimitsu wrote: > Hmm... Sorry, I failed to see how your patchset solved it. Would you > mind to explain how it is done? +static int __init ghes_edac_register(void) { + struct ghes_edac_pvt *pvt = ghes_pvt; Only one local ghes_pvt

Re: [PATCH v2 4/7] ghes_edac: avoid multiple calls to dmi_walk()

On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 03:57:35PM +, Kani, Toshimitsu wrote: > Hmm... Sorry, I failed to see how your patchset solved it. Would you > mind to explain how it is done? +static int __init ghes_edac_register(void) { + struct ghes_edac_pvt *pvt = ghes_pvt; Only one local ghes_pvt

Re: [PATCH v2 4/7] ghes_edac: avoid multiple calls to dmi_walk()

On Fri, 2017-08-11 at 11:04 +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Mon, Aug 07, 2017 at 05:59:15PM +, Kani, Toshimitsu wrote: > > I think we should keep the current scheme, which registers an mci > > for > > No we shouldn't. > > > each GHES entry.  ghes_edac_report_mem_error() expects that

Re: [PATCH v2 4/7] ghes_edac: avoid multiple calls to dmi_walk()

On Fri, 2017-08-11 at 11:04 +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Mon, Aug 07, 2017 at 05:59:15PM +, Kani, Toshimitsu wrote: > > I think we should keep the current scheme, which registers an mci > > for > > No we shouldn't. > > > each GHES entry.  ghes_edac_report_mem_error() expects that

Re: [PATCH v2 4/7] ghes_edac: avoid multiple calls to dmi_walk()

On Mon, Aug 07, 2017 at 05:59:15PM +, Kani, Toshimitsu wrote: > I think we should keep the current scheme, which registers an mci for No we shouldn't. > each GHES entry. ghes_edac_report_mem_error() expects that error- > reporting is serialized per a GHES entry. Sharing a single mci among

Re: [PATCH v2 4/7] ghes_edac: avoid multiple calls to dmi_walk()

On Mon, Aug 07, 2017 at 05:59:15PM +, Kani, Toshimitsu wrote: > I think we should keep the current scheme, which registers an mci for No we shouldn't. > each GHES entry. ghes_edac_report_mem_error() expects that error- > reporting is serialized per a GHES entry. Sharing a single mci among

Re: [PATCH v2 4/7] ghes_edac: avoid multiple calls to dmi_walk()

On Sat, 2017-08-05 at 07:16 +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 09:02:17PM +, Kani, Toshimitsu wrote: > > GHES platform devices correspond to GHES entries, which define > > firmware interfaces to report generic memory errors to the OS, such > > as NMI and SCI.  These

Re: [PATCH v2 4/7] ghes_edac: avoid multiple calls to dmi_walk()

On Sat, 2017-08-05 at 07:16 +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 09:02:17PM +, Kani, Toshimitsu wrote: > > GHES platform devices correspond to GHES entries, which define > > firmware interfaces to report generic memory errors to the OS, such > > as NMI and SCI.  These

Re: [PATCH v2 4/7] ghes_edac: avoid multiple calls to dmi_walk()

On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 09:02:17PM +, Kani, Toshimitsu wrote: > GHES platform devices correspond to GHES entries, which define firmware > interfaces to report generic memory errors to the OS, such as NMI and > SCI. These devices are associated with all DIMMs, not a particular > DIMM. And?

Re: [PATCH v2 4/7] ghes_edac: avoid multiple calls to dmi_walk()

On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 09:02:17PM +, Kani, Toshimitsu wrote: > GHES platform devices correspond to GHES entries, which define firmware > interfaces to report generic memory errors to the OS, such as NMI and > SCI. These devices are associated with all DIMMs, not a particular > DIMM. And?

Re: [PATCH v2 4/7] ghes_edac: avoid multiple calls to dmi_walk()

On Fri, 2017-08-04 at 06:05 +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 03:57:50PM -0600, Toshi Kani wrote: > > ghes_edac_register() is called for each GHES platform device > > instantiated per a GHES entry in ACPI HEST table.  dmi_walk() > > counts the number of DIMMs on the system,

Re: [PATCH v2 4/7] ghes_edac: avoid multiple calls to dmi_walk()

On Fri, 2017-08-04 at 06:05 +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 03:57:50PM -0600, Toshi Kani wrote: > > ghes_edac_register() is called for each GHES platform device > > instantiated per a GHES entry in ACPI HEST table.  dmi_walk() > > counts the number of DIMMs on the system,

Re: [PATCH v2 4/7] ghes_edac: avoid multiple calls to dmi_walk()

On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 03:57:50PM -0600, Toshi Kani wrote: > ghes_edac_register() is called for each GHES platform device > instantiated per a GHES entry in ACPI HEST table. dmi_walk() > counts the number of DIMMs on the system, and there is no need > to call it multiple times. > > Change

Re: [PATCH v2 4/7] ghes_edac: avoid multiple calls to dmi_walk()

On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 03:57:50PM -0600, Toshi Kani wrote: > ghes_edac_register() is called for each GHES platform device > instantiated per a GHES entry in ACPI HEST table. dmi_walk() > counts the number of DIMMs on the system, and there is no need > to call it multiple times. > > Change

[PATCH v2 4/7] ghes_edac: avoid multiple calls to dmi_walk()

ghes_edac_register() is called for each GHES platform device instantiated per a GHES entry in ACPI HEST table. dmi_walk() counts the number of DIMMs on the system, and there is no need to call it multiple times. Change ghes_edac_register() to call dmi_walk() only when 'num_dimm' is

[PATCH v2 4/7] ghes_edac: avoid multiple calls to dmi_walk()

ghes_edac_register() is called for each GHES platform device instantiated per a GHES entry in ACPI HEST table. dmi_walk() counts the number of DIMMs on the system, and there is no need to call it multiple times. Change ghes_edac_register() to call dmi_walk() only when 'num_dimm' is