On Fri, Apr 27, 2007 at 02:34:11PM -0700, Tim Hockin wrote:
> From: Tim Hockin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Background:
> We've found that MCEs (specifically DRAM SBEs) tend to come in bunches,
> especially when we are trying really hard to stress the system out. The
> current MCE poller uses a
From: Tim Hockin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Background:
We've found that MCEs (specifically DRAM SBEs) tend to come in bunches,
especially when we are trying really hard to stress the system out. The
current MCE poller uses a static interval which does not care whether it
has or has not found MCEs
On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 13:51:28 -0700 Tim Hockin wrote:
> This is the third version of this patch. The only change from the prior
> version is to use time_after_eq().
>
> diff -pruN linux-2.6.20/arch/x86_64/kernel/mce.c
> linux-2.6.20+th/arch/x86_64/kernel/mce.c
> ---
Sorry, Gmail mangles whitespace unless you do just the right thing.
Let me work around it. Proper patch coming.
On 4/27/07, Tim Hockin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
From: Tim Hockin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Background:
We've found that MCEs (specifically DRAM SBEs) tend to come in bunches,
From: Tim Hockin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Background:
We've found that MCEs (specifically DRAM SBEs) tend to come in bunches,
especially when we are trying really hard to stress the system out. The
current MCE poller uses a static interval which does not care whether it
has or has not found MCEs
> - printk(KERN_INFO "Machine check events logged\n");
> + if ((now - last_print) >= check_interval*HZ) {
Shouldn't this use time_after() to handle wrapping?
-Andi
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
From: Tim Hockin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Background:
We've found that MCEs (specifically DRAM SBEs) tend to come in bunches,
especially when we are trying really hard to stress the system out. The
current MCE poller uses a static interval which does not care whether it
has or has not found MCEs
On Fri, Apr 27, 2007 at 10:05:58AM -0700, Tim Hockin wrote:
> On 27 Apr 2007 19:02:30 +0200, Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On Fri, Apr 27, 2007 at 09:58:14AM -0700, Tim Hockin wrote:
> >> On 27 Apr 2007 11:09:17 +0200, Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >On Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at
On 27 Apr 2007 19:02:30 +0200, Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, Apr 27, 2007 at 09:58:14AM -0700, Tim Hockin wrote:
> On 27 Apr 2007 11:09:17 +0200, Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at 06:02:52PM -0700, Tim Hockin wrote:
> >> Description:
> >> This
On Fri, Apr 27, 2007 at 09:58:14AM -0700, Tim Hockin wrote:
> On 27 Apr 2007 11:09:17 +0200, Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at 06:02:52PM -0700, Tim Hockin wrote:
> >> Description:
> >> This patch makes the MCE poller adjust the polling interval dynamically.
> >>
On 27 Apr 2007 11:09:17 +0200, Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at 06:02:52PM -0700, Tim Hockin wrote:
> Description:
> This patch makes the MCE poller adjust the polling interval dynamically.
> If we find an MCE, poll 2x faster (down to 10 ms). When we stop finding
On Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at 06:02:52PM -0700, Tim Hockin wrote:
> Description:
> This patch makes the MCE poller adjust the polling interval dynamically.
> If we find an MCE, poll 2x faster (down to 10 ms). When we stop finding
> MCEs, poll 2x slower (up to check_interval seconds). The
On Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at 06:02:52PM -0700, Tim Hockin wrote:
Description:
This patch makes the MCE poller adjust the polling interval dynamically.
If we find an MCE, poll 2x faster (down to 10 ms). When we stop finding
MCEs, poll 2x slower (up to check_interval seconds). The check_interval
On 27 Apr 2007 11:09:17 +0200, Andi Kleen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at 06:02:52PM -0700, Tim Hockin wrote:
Description:
This patch makes the MCE poller adjust the polling interval dynamically.
If we find an MCE, poll 2x faster (down to 10 ms). When we stop finding
On Fri, Apr 27, 2007 at 09:58:14AM -0700, Tim Hockin wrote:
On 27 Apr 2007 11:09:17 +0200, Andi Kleen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at 06:02:52PM -0700, Tim Hockin wrote:
Description:
This patch makes the MCE poller adjust the polling interval dynamically.
If we find an
On 27 Apr 2007 19:02:30 +0200, Andi Kleen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Apr 27, 2007 at 09:58:14AM -0700, Tim Hockin wrote:
On 27 Apr 2007 11:09:17 +0200, Andi Kleen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at 06:02:52PM -0700, Tim Hockin wrote:
Description:
This patch makes the
On Fri, Apr 27, 2007 at 10:05:58AM -0700, Tim Hockin wrote:
On 27 Apr 2007 19:02:30 +0200, Andi Kleen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Apr 27, 2007 at 09:58:14AM -0700, Tim Hockin wrote:
On 27 Apr 2007 11:09:17 +0200, Andi Kleen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at 06:02:52PM
From: Tim Hockin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Background:
We've found that MCEs (specifically DRAM SBEs) tend to come in bunches,
especially when we are trying really hard to stress the system out. The
current MCE poller uses a static interval which does not care whether it
has or has not found MCEs
- printk(KERN_INFO Machine check events logged\n);
+ if ((now - last_print) = check_interval*HZ) {
Shouldn't this use time_after() to handle wrapping?
-Andi
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL
From: Tim Hockin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Background:
We've found that MCEs (specifically DRAM SBEs) tend to come in bunches,
especially when we are trying really hard to stress the system out. The
current MCE poller uses a static interval which does not care whether it
has or has not found MCEs
Sorry, Gmail mangles whitespace unless you do just the right thing.
Let me work around it. Proper patch coming.
On 4/27/07, Tim Hockin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Tim Hockin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Background:
We've found that MCEs (specifically DRAM SBEs) tend to come in bunches,
especially
On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 13:51:28 -0700 Tim Hockin wrote:
This is the third version of this patch. The only change from the prior
version is to use time_after_eq().
diff -pruN linux-2.6.20/arch/x86_64/kernel/mce.c
linux-2.6.20+th/arch/x86_64/kernel/mce.c
---
From: Tim Hockin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Background:
We've found that MCEs (specifically DRAM SBEs) tend to come in bunches,
especially when we are trying really hard to stress the system out. The
current MCE poller uses a static interval which does not care whether it
has or has not found MCEs
On Fri, Apr 27, 2007 at 02:34:11PM -0700, Tim Hockin wrote:
From: Tim Hockin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Background:
We've found that MCEs (specifically DRAM SBEs) tend to come in bunches,
especially when we are trying really hard to stress the system out. The
current MCE poller uses a static
From: Tim Hockin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Background:
We've found that MCEs (specifically DRAM SBEs) tend to come in bunches,
especially when we are trying really hard to stress the system out. The
current MCE poller uses a static interval which does not care whether it
has or has not found MCEs
From: Tim Hockin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Background:
We've found that MCEs (specifically DRAM SBEs) tend to come in bunches,
especially when we are trying really hard to stress the system out. The
current MCE poller uses a static interval which does not care whether it
has or has not found MCEs
26 matches
Mail list logo
