On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 10:16:56AM -0700, Havard Skinnemoen wrote: > Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 10:16:56 -0700 > From: Havard Skinnemoen <[email protected]> > To: "Chen, Gong" <[email protected]> > Cc: Borislav Petkov <[email protected]>, Tony Luck <[email protected]>, Linux > Kernel <[email protected]>, Ewout van Bekkum <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] x86-mce: Modify CMCI poll interval to adjust for > small check_interval values. > > On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 2:01 AM, Chen, Gong <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 09, 2014 at 02:24:31PM -0700, Havard Skinnemoen wrote: > >> On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 12:17 PM, Borislav Petkov <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > Why min 3 polls? How do you come up with exactly that frequency? > >> > >> The idea is that if we make it equal to check_interval, it might > >> bounce back and forth a lot. So we need to divide by something, and 8 > >> seems like a nice, safe value, and it seems to work well. We're not > >> opposed to considering other values, of course (e.g. 2 and 4 might > >> work well too, but with somewhat higher risk of ping-ponging). > > That value looks chosen a little bit at will. How about updating > > CMCI_POLL_INTERVAL when check_interval is changed to ensure > > CMCI_POLL_INTERVAL <= check_interval always. > > I guess that would work equally well, but we still need to determine > the magic number of how much less we want CMCI_POLL_INTERVAL to be. > > Havard I mean you can change CMCI_POLL_INTERVAL from a macro to a variable and then do prove check.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
