Re: [PATCH v7] x86/mce: retrieve poison range from hardware

2022-08-26 Thread Jane Chu
On 8/26/2022 11:09 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 10:54:31AM -0700, Dan Williams wrote: >> How about: >> >> --- >> >> When memory poison consumption machine checks fire, >> mce-notifier-handlers like nfit_handle_mce() record the impacted >> physical address range. > > ...

Re: [PATCH v7] x86/mce: retrieve poison range from hardware

2022-08-26 Thread Dan Williams
Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Thu, Aug 25, 2022 at 04:29:47PM +, Jane Chu wrote: > > Tony has replied. > > Do you really think that I can't look up what field means? > > What I said was > > "What I'm missing from this text here is... " > > IOW, what I'm trying to say is, you should formulate

Re: [PATCH v7] x86/mce: retrieve poison range from hardware

2022-08-25 Thread Jane Chu
On 8/23/2022 9:51 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Tue, Aug 02, 2022 at 01:50:53PM -0600, Jane Chu wrote: >> With Commit 7917f9cdb503 ("acpi/nfit: rely on mce->misc to determine >> poison granularity") that changed nfit_handle_mce() callback to report >> badrange according to 1ULL <<

RE: [PATCH v7] x86/mce: retrieve poison range from hardware

2022-08-23 Thread Luck, Tony
> What I'm missing from this text here is, what *is* the mce->misc LSB > field in human speak? What does that field denote? The SDM says: Recoverable Address LSB (bits 5:0): The lowest valid recoverable address bit. Indicates the position of the least significant bit (LSB) of the recoverable

Re: [PATCH v7] x86/mce: retrieve poison range from hardware

2022-08-23 Thread Jane Chu
>>> I suppose this wants to go upstream via the tree the bug came from (NVDIMM >>> tree? ACPI tree?), or should we pick it up into the x86 tree? >> >> No idea. Maintainers? > > There's no real NVDIMM dependency here, just a general cleanup of how > APEI error granularities are managed. So

Re: [PATCH v7] x86/mce: retrieve poison range from hardware

2022-08-08 Thread Dan Williams
Jane Chu wrote: > On 8/3/2022 1:53 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > * Jane Chu wrote: > > > >> With Commit 7917f9cdb503 ("acpi/nfit: rely on mce->misc to determine > > > > s/Commit/commit > > Maintainers, > Would you prefer a v8, or take care the comment upon accepting the patch? > > > > >>

Re: [PATCH v7] x86/mce: retrieve poison range from hardware

2022-08-08 Thread Jane Chu
On 8/3/2022 1:53 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Jane Chu wrote: > >> With Commit 7917f9cdb503 ("acpi/nfit: rely on mce->misc to determine > > s/Commit/commit Maintainers, Would you prefer a v8, or take care the comment upon accepting the patch? > >> poison granularity") that changed

Re: [PATCH v7] x86/mce: retrieve poison range from hardware

2022-08-03 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Jane Chu wrote: > With Commit 7917f9cdb503 ("acpi/nfit: rely on mce->misc to determine s/Commit/commit > poison granularity") that changed nfit_handle_mce() callback to report > badrange according to 1ULL << MCI_MISC_ADDR_LSB(mce->misc), it's been > discovered that the mce->misc LSB field

[PATCH v7] x86/mce: retrieve poison range from hardware

2022-08-02 Thread Jane Chu
With Commit 7917f9cdb503 ("acpi/nfit: rely on mce->misc to determine poison granularity") that changed nfit_handle_mce() callback to report badrange according to 1ULL << MCI_MISC_ADDR_LSB(mce->misc), it's been discovered that the mce->misc LSB field is 0x1000 bytes, hence injecting 2 back-to-back