Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S935628Ab3DIJpt (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Apr 2013 05:45:49 -0400 Received: from numascale.com ([213.162.240.84]:33787 "EHLO numascale.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S935338Ab3DIJpq (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Apr 2013 05:45:46 -0400 Message-ID: <5163E348.7060206@numascale.com> Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2013 11:45:44 +0200 From: Steffen Persvold User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130328 Thunderbird/17.0.5 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Borislav Petkov , Daniel J Blueman , Tony Luck , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , x86@kernel.org, linux-edac@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86, amd, mce: Prevent potential cpu-online oops References: <1365090720-12652-1-git-send-email-daniel@numascale-asia.com> <20130404161340.GF32271@pd.tnic> <515DC0FA.1040408@numascale.com> <20130404190731.GG32271@pd.tnic> <5163DE7C.7060700@numascale.com> <20130409093854.GC10243@pd.tnic> In-Reply-To: <20130409093854.GC10243@pd.tnic> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - cpanel21.proisp.no X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - vger.kernel.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - numascale.com X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: cpanel21.proisp.no: authenticated_id: sp@numascale.com Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1317 Lines: 35 On 4/9/2013 11:38 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 11:25:16AM +0200, Steffen Persvold wrote: >> Why not let all cores just create their individual kobject and skip >> this "shared" nb->bank4 concept ? Any disadvantage to that (apart from >> the obvious storage bloat?). > > Well, bank4 is shared across cores on the northbridge in *hardware*. Well, yes I was aware of that :) > So it is only logical to represent the hardware layout correctly in > software. > > Also, if you want to configure any settings over one core's sysfs nodes, > you want those to be visible across all cores automagically: Hmm, yes of course. This of course breaks on our slave servers when the shared mechanism doesn't work properly (i.e NB not visible). Then all cores gets individual kobjects and there can be discrepancies between what the hardware is programmed to and what is reflected in /sys on some cores.. Ok, we go with our first approach to not create MC4 at all if NB isn't visible. We'll redo the patch against the tip:x86/ras branch. Cheers, Steffen -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/