> Just as what you said, the severity table entry for the "EN" check
> should have been skipped when calling from the CMCI/Poll handler.
> As shown below:
>
>MCESEV(
>NO, "Not enabled",
>EXCP, BITCLR(MCI_STATUS_EN)
>),
Yes - that worked.
Just as what you said, the severity table entry for the EN check
should have been skipped when calling from the CMCI/Poll handler.
As shown below:
MCESEV(
NO, Not enabled,
EXCP, BITCLR(MCI_STATUS_EN)
),
Yes - that worked. The bank 7
On Tue, 2014-11-11 at 18:44 +, Luck, Tony wrote:
> >> The bank 7 error reported as severity 0 because EN=0 ... so we took no
> >> action for it.
> >
> > How come EN is 0? Bank7 error reporting is not enabled? Why? Or the
> > error injection thing doesn't do it?
>
> The "EN" bit is poorly
>> The bank 7 error reported as severity 0 because EN=0 ... so we took no
>> action for it.
>
> How come EN is 0? Bank7 error reporting is not enabled? Why? Or the
> error injection thing doesn't do it?
The "EN" bit is poorly named, and not well documented. Here's a clip from the
SDM:
One of
On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 11:32:12PM +, Luck, Tony wrote:
> But then I tested it ...
>
> I injected a UC error to memory - then did a simple byte write to the target
> line.
> This resulted in two banks logging errors:
>
> [ 124.638045] poll: CPU54 saw ec010092 in bank 7
> [
On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 11:32:12PM +, Luck, Tony wrote:
But then I tested it ...
I injected a UC error to memory - then did a simple byte write to the target
line.
This resulted in two banks logging errors:
[ 124.638045] poll: CPU54 saw ec010092 in bank 7
[ 124.639006]
The bank 7 error reported as severity 0 because EN=0 ... so we took no
action for it.
How come EN is 0? Bank7 error reporting is not enabled? Why? Or the
error injection thing doesn't do it?
The EN bit is poorly named, and not well documented. Here's a clip from the
SDM:
One of bullets
On Tue, 2014-11-11 at 18:44 +, Luck, Tony wrote:
The bank 7 error reported as severity 0 because EN=0 ... so we took no
action for it.
How come EN is 0? Bank7 error reporting is not enabled? Why? Or the
error injection thing doesn't do it?
The EN bit is poorly named, and not well
But then I tested it ...
I injected a UC error to memory - then did a simple byte write to the target
line.
This resulted in two banks logging errors:
[ 124.638045] poll: CPU54 saw ec010092 in bank 7
[ 124.639006] poll: severity = 0
[ 124.647333] poll: CPU54 saw b8200179 in
On 11/10/2014 4:17 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 04:06:00PM -0600, Aravind Gopalakrishnan wrote:
+ MCESEV(
+ DEFERRED, "Deferred error",
+ NOSER,
MASK(MCI_STATUS_UC|MCI_STATUS_DEFERRED|MCI_STATUS_POISON, MCI_STATUS_DEFERRED)
On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 04:06:00PM -0600, Aravind Gopalakrishnan wrote:
> >+MCESEV(
> >+DEFERRED, "Deferred error",
> >+NOSER,
> >MASK(MCI_STATUS_UC|MCI_STATUS_DEFERRED|MCI_STATUS_POISON,
> >MCI_STATUS_DEFERRED)
> > ),
>
> We don't need to have
On 11/7/2014 7:40 PM, Chen Yucong wrote:
Until now, the mce_severity mechanism can only identify the severity
of UCNA error as MCE_KEEP_SEVERITY. Meanwhile, it is not able to filter
out DEFERRED error for ADM platform.
This patch aims to extend the mce_severity mechanism for handling
On 11/7/2014 7:40 PM, Chen Yucong wrote:
Until now, the mce_severity mechanism can only identify the severity
of UCNA error as MCE_KEEP_SEVERITY. Meanwhile, it is not able to filter
out DEFERRED error for ADM platform.
This patch aims to extend the mce_severity mechanism for handling
On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 04:06:00PM -0600, Aravind Gopalakrishnan wrote:
+MCESEV(
+DEFERRED, Deferred error,
+NOSER,
MASK(MCI_STATUS_UC|MCI_STATUS_DEFERRED|MCI_STATUS_POISON,
MCI_STATUS_DEFERRED)
),
We don't need to have MCI_STATUS_POISON in the
On 11/10/2014 4:17 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 04:06:00PM -0600, Aravind Gopalakrishnan wrote:
+ MCESEV(
+ DEFERRED, Deferred error,
+ NOSER,
MASK(MCI_STATUS_UC|MCI_STATUS_DEFERRED|MCI_STATUS_POISON, MCI_STATUS_DEFERRED)
But then I tested it ...
I injected a UC error to memory - then did a simple byte write to the target
line.
This resulted in two banks logging errors:
[ 124.638045] poll: CPU54 saw ec010092 in bank 7
[ 124.639006] poll: severity = 0
[ 124.647333] poll: CPU54 saw b8200179 in
Until now, the mce_severity mechanism can only identify the severity
of UCNA error as MCE_KEEP_SEVERITY. Meanwhile, it is not able to filter
out DEFERRED error for ADM platform.
This patch aims to extend the mce_severity mechanism for handling
UCNA/DEFERRED error. In order to do this, the patch
Until now, the mce_severity mechanism can only identify the severity
of UCNA error as MCE_KEEP_SEVERITY. Meanwhile, it is not able to filter
out DEFERRED error for ADM platform.
This patch aims to extend the mce_severity mechanism for handling
UCNA/DEFERRED error. In order to do this, the patch
18 matches
Mail list logo
