Linux-EDAC Archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Sohil Mehta <sohil.mehta@intel.com>
To: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@intel.com>,
	"x86@kernel.org" <x86@kernel.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
	"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
	"Yazen Ghannam" <yazen.ghannam@amd.com>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-edac@vger.kernel.org" <linux-edac@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: x86/mce: Is mce_is_memory_error() incorrect for Intel?
Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2023 04:41:36 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <314eedc5-c27e-4e63-b74a-7b06f64fdd86@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <SJ1PR11MB60831E048B544C83E845D907FC8DA@SJ1PR11MB6083.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>

Thanks Tony for the explanation. It is very helpful.

>> Type                          Form
>> ----                          ----
>> Generic Cache Hierarchy       000F 0000 0000 11LL
>> TLB Errors                    000F 0000 0001 TTLL
>> Memory Controller Errors      000F 0000 1MMM CCCC
>> Cache Hierarchy Errors                000F 0001 RRRR TTLL
>> Extended Memory Errors                000F 0010 1MMM CCCC
>> Bus and Interconnect Errors   000F 1PPT RRRR IILL
>>
>> I am not sure what are the practical implications of getting
>> mce_is_memory_error() wrong. (This issue is completely theoretical right
>> now.) Any insights?
> 
> This function is used to check whether an address is OS addressable memory
> (i.e. for a page that could be taken offline). That doesn't apply to the caching
> use case (the only way to "offline" such a page would be to offline each of the
> slow memory pages that it might be used for).
> 

Makes sense. I am assuming these Extended Memory Errors will not be used
anymore (even for CXL.mem type configs) and we don't need to include
them in the mce_is_memory_error() check? I'll update the comment
accordingly.

> I'm not quite sure why bit 8 (cache hierarchy error) was added into this check,
> It would seem to have the same issues as extended memory.
> 

From a little bit of digging it seems the check for "cache hierarchy
errors" was always there. Commit fa92c5869426 ("x86, mce: Support memory
error recovery for both UCNA and Deferred error in machine_check_poll")
introduced the original checks but maybe the intention at that time was
different? I see that the CEC stuff was added later so maybe the
original memory related failures were handled differently?

Now, should we remove the cache error related check from
mce_is_memory_error()?

      reply	other threads:[~2023-12-15 23:11 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-12-06  1:38 [PATCH] x86/mce: Update references to the Intel SDM Sohil Mehta
2023-12-06 10:13 ` Borislav Petkov
2023-12-06 23:03   ` Sohil Mehta
2023-12-13 19:27 ` x86/mce: Is mce_is_memory_error() incorrect for Intel? Sohil Mehta
2023-12-13 19:54   ` Luck, Tony
2023-12-15 23:11     ` Sohil Mehta [this message]

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=314eedc5-c27e-4e63-b74a-7b06f64fdd86@intel.com \
    --to=sohil.mehta@intel.com \
    --cc=arnd@arndb.de \
    --cc=bp@alien8.de \
    --cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=hpa@zytor.com \
    --cc=linux-edac@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=tony.luck@intel.com \
    --cc=x86@kernel.org \
    --cc=yazen.ghannam@amd.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).