Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965397AbXBLVD2 (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Feb 2007 16:03:28 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S965405AbXBLVD2 (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Feb 2007 16:03:28 -0500 Received: from web50102.mail.yahoo.com ([206.190.38.30]:21307 "HELO web50102.mail.yahoo.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S965397AbXBLVD2 (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Feb 2007 16:03:28 -0500 X-Greylist: delayed 398 seconds by postgrey-1.27 at vger.kernel.org; Mon, 12 Feb 2007 16:03:27 EST DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-ID; b=TkE7/EdUip6/opxKsVPM9cZza4ova3krDKjNTqoLawZnvKzDjxa84SSzE9moPvu+5NQZPQ7CesPN2kefNALYOjozG//SW5PwBkFbYZuXF0J677AMv78SXjE5AXKVmHRjkDv3imiy7+RgLFElym/JUeeQg98efADH2lfhrKjK9Dk=; X-YMail-OSG: zEoOBgYVM1kb31gbu6CayvF5QigwF0yedBNj1iUPM2eCy3TDlJ_JTMuZR0jSM1nTpOgnId6pZG.0ISVOOB9j7r3y17rYfmMgNwEAa9N4FuoXNHUTTO7Z6rC1XdOkViUb6pbPk_hKAFY- Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 12:56:47 -0800 (PST) From: Doug Thompson Subject: Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.21 To: Andi Kleen , Alan Cc: Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Message-ID: <484858.10028.qm@web50102.mail.yahoo.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 4421 Lines: 106 --- Andi Kleen wrote: > Alan writes: > > > Please just push the EDAC K8 stuff. Andi will say "no" from now > until the > > end of time, but end users want it, distributions want it, and Andi > is > > not the EDAC maintainer so should consider himself overruled on > what > > isn't a technical issue but a personal political viewpoint. > > Well it's a technical issue -- it conflicts with the machine check > code that is already implemented by stealing away its events. > You would first need a CONFIG_MCE=n on x86-64 at least, otherwise > one of them will be unhappy. > > The other issue is that the existing code does everything EDAC > K8 does already perfectly fine, just in a small fraction of > the code. > > -Andi I assert that there is a greater than just a technical implementation issue. I maintain that it is a design pattern issue. The MCE hardware mechanism is a good mechanism for reporting Hardware events. The problem comes in as to WHERE those events should be handled. EDAC was designed to be a 'stack' of drivers. The upper CORE module is to provide an abstraction, whose presentation to user space is to be uniform across processes and architectures. The individual lower drivers, which register with the core, handle the machine and/or architecture specifics of 'driving' the hardware and funnel events to the core. EDAC is operational now on MIPS and ARM architectures (phone device) as well as on x86 and x86_64. Additional features of a given arch/processor that can be utilized in harvesting hardware events should be captured and then funneled to the 'low' level EDAC driver. That driver can then pass the event onto the CORE module for further processings and presentation, as determined by the controls into the CORE. MCE event processing should be funneled to the EDAC K8 driver and not directly to userspace. The design pattern I have been trying to utilize in EDAC, is the same one used by the Network stack and the SCSI stack. If I have a new NIC, which has some great new hardware feature, should the driver export that feature outside of the network stack, which does not CURRENTLY support the processing of the feature. OR should the network stack control paths be extended to provide a mechanism whereby that new feature could be utilized? Similiar design pattern exists on the SCSI stack, with device features and hardware abilities. I am currently developing enhancements to EDAC that provide for L1, L2, etc cache ECC event harvesting, DMA ECC event harvest, interconnect harvesting, and other chipset/processing ECC event harvesting. Some events are polled others are software interupt delivered. This is on an arch OTHER than x86 or x86_64. But these EDAC features can be used on the x86/x86_64 as well. As there IS an ECC event consumption race between MCE and EDAC, then at least a 'config' mechanism can be utilized to switch between the two. Better yet, I would like to be able to capture the MCE events and funnel them to EDAC, when loaded, as a downstream consumer of the MCE event stream. Then EDAC would process the information and then proceed to inform whether the event was handled or not by EDAC. Additionally, it would inform whether a panic should occur or not. When EDAC is not loaded, then MCE would act as it does now. The downside with both EDAC and MCE being in place, is that there would be ONE MCE processing pattern for the AMD x86_64 processors and the EDAC pattern for all the other archs/processors. As far as I can tell, other MCE processors don't generate the events as advertized. Maybe I am wrong on that, but I can't find them. How much hardware specific detail should be exported? I assert the better solution is to have the ability to hook into the MCE event stream by the EDAC K8 driver, then provide action rules (EDAC controls) in processing those events, which EDAC would return to the MCE stream. As to the size of the MCE code doing everything EDAC K8 does, that is mostly true. BUT then the x86_64 MCE mechanism becomes the exception path. Even the company using EDAC on the phone device doesn't mind the 60 kilobytes. doug t - 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/