From: "Kani, Toshimitsu" <toshi.kani@hpe.com>
To: "mchehab@s-opensource.com" <mchehab@s-opensource.com>
CC: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "tglx@linutronix.de" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        "mchehab@kernel.org" <mchehab@kernel.org>,
        "rjw@rjwysocki.net" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
        "srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com" 
        <srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com>,
        "bp@alien8.de" <bp@alien8.de>,
        "tony.luck@intel.com" <tony.luck@intel.com>,
        "lenb@kernel.org" <lenb@kernel.org>,
        "linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-edac@vger.kernel.org" <linux-edac@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] ghes_edac: add platform check to enable ghes_edac
Thread-Topic: [PATCH 3/3] ghes_edac: add platform check to enable ghes_edac
Thread-Index: AQHS/0lGOl4i5ss6QUSn88C0VF1rJqJZF6OAgADnxYCAABgPgIABQtCAgADJ5ACAAP1sAIABLAyAgAABfoCAAAIFgIAAFCYAgAAD5ICAAANsAIAABSqAgAANIYCAAAiGgIAAAv2A
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2017 17:21:31 +0000
Message-ID: <1500657133.2042.51.camel@hpe.com>
References: <20170718060007.GB8736@nazgul.tnic>
         <1500407379.2042.21.camel@hpe.com> <20170718181545.32bd9181@vento.lan>
         <1500481869.2042.29.camel@hpe.com> <20170720043344.GC14367@nazgul.tnic>
         <1500579646.2042.37.camel@hpe.com> <20170721133441.GB5036@nazgul.tnic>
         <20170721104001.3cd2b884@vento.lan> <20170721134715.GC5036@nazgul.tnic>
         <1500649162.2042.43.camel@hpe.com> <20170721151317.GA13424@nazgul.tnic>
         <1500650732.2042.45.camel@hpe.com> <20170721124401.5f94aba9@vento.lan>
         <1500654661.2042.49.camel@hpe.com> <20170721140131.40079805@vento.lan>
In-Reply-To: <20170721140131.40079805@vento.lan>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <2FBE99E5C94956489F646539178B0D71@NAMPRD84.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 21 Jul 2017 17:21:31.2644
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 105b2061-b669-4b31-92ac-24d304d195dc
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DF4PR84MB0187
X-OriginatorOrg: hpe.com
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from base64 to 8bit by nfs id v6LHMUVv028084
Content-Length: 3114
Lines: 69

On Fri, 2017-07-21 at 14:01 -0300, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> Em Fri, 21 Jul 2017 16:40:20 +0000
> "Kani, Toshimitsu" <toshi.kani@hpe.com> escreveu:
> 
> > On Fri, 2017-07-21 at 12:44 -0300, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> > > Em Fri, 21 Jul 2017 15:34:50 +0000
> > > "Kani, Toshimitsu" <toshi.kani@hpe.com> escreveu:
> > >   
> > > > On Fri, 2017-07-21 at 17:13 +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:  
> > > > > On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 03:08:41PM +0000, Kani, Toshimitsu
> > > > > wrote:    
> > > > > > Yes, that is correct.  Corrected errors are reported to the
> > > > > > OS when they exceeded the platform's threshold.    
> > > > > 
> > > > > Are those thresholds user-configurable?    
> > > > 
> > > > I suppose it'd depend on vendors, but I do not think users can
> > > > do it properly unless they have depth knowledge about the
> > > > hardware.
> > > >   
> > > > > If not, what are you telling users who want to see *every*
> > > > > corrected error for measuring DIMM wear and so on...?    
> > > > 
> > > > Corrected errors are normal and expected to occur on healthy
> > > > hardware.  They do not need user's attention until they
> > > > repeatedly occurred at a same place.  
> > > 
> > > Yes, they're expected to happen. Still, some sys admins have
> > > their own measurements about what's "normal" for their scenario,
> > > and want to monitor every single corrected error, running their
> > > own algorithm to warn if the number of corrected errors is above
> > > their "normal" rate.  
> > 
> > I suppose these admins had to do it because their platforms
> > reported all corrected errors.  It addresses such administrators'
> > burden.
> 
> I see the value of having a threshold in BIOS, provided that it is
> well documented, and whose value can be adjusted, if needed.
> 
> One of the things I wanted to implement in ras-daemon were an
> algorithm that would be doing such threshold in software.
> The problem is that it would require field experience. So,
> I talked with a few vendors, to see if they could help doing
> it, but, on that time, none rised their hands :-)

I think it'd be very hard to keep it up to date.

> The thing with a BIOS threshold is that the user has no way to
> audit the algorithm. So, when BIOS start reporting such errors,
> it may be already too late: the systems may be in the verge of 
> losing data (or some data was already lost).
> 
> That's critical on cluster systems with thousands of machines:
> while the impact of disabling a cluster node to do some maintainance
> is marginal, the impact of an uncorrected error on a single
> machine may compromise weeks of expensive processing.
> 
> That's why some users prefer to monitor every single corrected
> error, and compare with the probability distribution they
> know that the risk of uncorrected errors is acceptable.

Right, I do not think all platforms need to be firmware-first.  I do
not want to talk like a sale's person, but we also offer lower-cost
platforms that do not come with built-in RAS.  Users can choose a right
model for their needs.

Thanks,
-Toshi