On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 01:48:38AM -0400, Ashok Raj wrote: > MCE_LOG_LEN appears to be short for high core count parts. Especially when > handling fatal errors, we don't clear MCE banks. Socket level MC banks > are visible to all CPUs that share banks. > > Assuming 18 core part, 2 threads per core 2 banks per thread and couple uncore > MSRs. Rounding to 128 with some fudge to grow in future. > > Signed-off-by: Ashok Raj <ashok....@intel.com> > Suggested-by: Tony Luck <tony.l...@intel.com> > --- > arch/x86/include/asm/mce.h | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/mce.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/mce.h > index 2dbc0bf..4293ae7 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/mce.h > +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/mce.h > @@ -88,7 +88,7 @@ > #define MCE_EXTENDED_BANK 128 > #define MCE_THERMAL_BANK (MCE_EXTENDED_BANK + 0) > > -#define MCE_LOG_LEN 32 > +#define MCE_LOG_LEN 128 > #define MCE_LOG_SIGNATURE "MACHINECHECK"
Hmm, I don't think this is what I meant when we talked about it previously. So let me try again: Now that we have this shiny 2-pages sized lockless gen_pool, why are we still dealing with struct mce_log mcelog? Why can't we rip it out and kill it finally? And switch to the gen_pool? All code that reads from mcelog - /dev/mcelog chrdev - should switch to the lockless buffer and will iterate through the logged MCEs there. I think this way we're much better prepared for future machine sizes. We can even use memblock to allocate appropriate memory at boot for the gen_pool if the 2 pages are not enough. Hmmm? -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/