Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Sat, 11 Jan 2020 14:17:44 +0100
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
To:     "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@intel.com>
Cc:     Jan =?utf-8?Q?H=2E_Sch=C3=B6nherr?= <jschoenh@amazon.de>,
        Yazen Ghannam <yazen.ghannam@amd.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-edac@vger.kernel.org,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, x86@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] x86/mce: Take action on UCNA/Deferred errors again
Message-ID: <20200111131744.GC23583@zn.tnic>
References: <20200103150722.20313-1-jschoenh@amazon.de>
 <20200103150722.20313-2-jschoenh@amazon.de>
 <20200110095004.GD19453@zn.tnic>
 <20200110184533.GB20511@agluck-desk2.amr.corp.intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200110184533.GB20511@agluck-desk2.amr.corp.intel.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 10:45:33AM -0800, Luck, Tony wrote:
> I totally agree that counting notifiers is clumsy. Also less than
> ideal is the concept that any notifier on the chain can declare:
>   "I fixed it"
> and prevent any other notifiers from even seeing it. Well the concept
> is good, but it is overused.

But why can't we use it?

Don't get me wrong: I'm simply following my KISS approach to do the
simplest scheme required. So, do you see a use case where the whole
error handling chain would need more sophisticated handling?

> I think we may do better with a field in the "struct mce" that is being
> passed to each where notifiers can wiggle some bits (semantics to be
> defined later) which can tell subsequent notifiers what sort of actions
> have been taken.
> E.g. the SRAO/UCNA notifier can say "I took this page offline"
> the dev_mcelog one can say "I think I handed to a process that has /dev/mcelog open"
> EDAC drivers can say "I decoded the address and printed something"
> CEC can say: "I silently counted this corrected error", or "error exceeded
> threshold and I took the page offline".
> 
> The default notifier can print to console if nobody set a bit to say
> that the error had been somehow logged.

That idea is good and I'll gladly take patches for it so if you wanna do
it...

Thx.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette