Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752741Ab1EVIOg (ORCPT ); Sun, 22 May 2011 04:14:36 -0400 Received: from mail-vw0-f46.google.com ([209.85.212.46]:37386 "EHLO mail-vw0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752453Ab1EVIOY (ORCPT ); Sun, 22 May 2011 04:14:24 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=q1pHvYlT+a3bg2X0q1TmQquKJOfjcPNylykyY5/F+NPbfwQGzfEHPbbOiuWOCCntCb x1fKZZfsd2BkTUvhg8lL08HUA3xlp+F9T4rFqIbima9B2ki86EWwUH9YYLvxwmEZtWBz moAL3qHkjWyQ8RVHUzOfeYi3F28+BzayIv5iw= MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20110520115614.GH14745@elte.hu> References: <1305619719-7480-1-git-send-email-ying.huang@intel.com> <1305619719-7480-6-git-send-email-ying.huang@intel.com> <20110517084622.GE22093@elte.hu> <4DD23750.3030606@intel.com> <20110517092620.GI22093@elte.hu> <4DD31C78.6000209@intel.com> <20110520115614.GH14745@elte.hu> Date: Sun, 22 May 2011 16:14:23 +0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/9] HWPoison: add memory_failure_queue() From: huang ying To: Ingo Molnar Cc: Huang Ying , Len Brown , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Andi Kleen , "Luck, Tony" , "linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org" , Andi Kleen , "Wu, Fengguang" , Andrew Morton , Linus Torvalds , Peter Zijlstra , Borislav Petkov Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1641 Lines: 38 On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 7:56 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Huang Ying wrote: > >> > So why are we not working towards integrating this into our event >> > reporting/handling framework, as i suggested it from day one on when you >> > started posting these patches? >> >> The memory_failure_queue() introduced in this patch is general, that is, it >> can be used not only by ACPI/APEI, but also any other hardware error >> handlers, including your event reporting/handling framework. > > Well, the bit you are steadfastly ignoring is what i have made clear well > before you started adding these facilities: THEY ALREADY EXISTS to a large > degree :-) > > So you were and are duplicating code instead of using and extending existing > event processing facilities. It does not matter one little bit that the code > you added is partly 'generic', it's still overlapping and duplicated. How to do hardware error recovering in your perf framework? IMHO, it can be something as follow: - NMI handler run for the hardware error, where hardware error information is collected and put into a ring buffer, an irq_work is triggered for further work - In irq_work handler, memory_failure_queue() is called to do the real recovering work for recoverable memory error in ring buffer. What's your idea about hardware error recovering in perf? Best Regards, Huang Ying -- 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/