From: "Ghannam, Yazen" <Yazen.Ghannam@amd.com>
To: Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Cc: "x86@kernel.org" <x86@kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@intel.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] x86, mce: Fix machine_check_poll() tests for which errors to log
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2019 20:25:53 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <SN6PR12MB26399CBAEFB6C500D456255DF8480@SN6PR12MB2639.namprd12.prod.outlook.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190311185118.32667-1-tony.luck@intel.com>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org> On Behalf Of Tony Luck
> Sent: Monday, March 11, 2019 1:51 PM
> To: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
> Cc: Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>; x86@kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@intel.com>
> Subject: [PATCH] x86, mce: Fix machine_check_poll() tests for which errors to log
>
> There has been a lurking "TBD" in the machine check poll routine ever
> since it was first split out from the machine check handler. The potential
> issue is that the poll routine may have just begun a read from the STATUS
> register in a machine check bank when the hardware logs an error in that
> bank and signals a machine check. That race used to be pretty small back
> when machine checks were broadcast, but the addition of local machine check
> means that the poll code could continue running and clear the error from the
> bank before the local machine check handler on another CPU gets around to
> reading it.
>
> Fix the code to be sure to only process errors that need to be processed
> in the poll code, leaving other logged errors alone for the machine check
> handler to find and process.
>
> Fixes: b79109c3bbcf ("x86, mce: separate correct machine check poller and fatal exception handler")
> Fixes: ed7290d0ee8f ("x86, mce: implement new status bits")
> Reported-by: Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>
> ---
> arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mce/core.c | 42 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
> 1 file changed, 35 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mce/core.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mce/core.c
> index 6ce290c506d9..806551b381ae 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mce/core.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mce/core.c
> @@ -712,19 +712,47 @@ bool machine_check_poll(enum mcp_flags flags, mce_banks_t *b)
>
> barrier();
> m.status = mce_rdmsrl(msr_ops.status(i));
> +
> + /* If this entry is not valid, ignore it */
> if (!(m.status & MCI_STATUS_VAL))
> continue;
>
> /*
> - * Uncorrected or signalled events are handled by the exception
> - * handler when it is enabled, so don't process those here.
> - *
> - * TBD do the same check for MCI_STATUS_EN here?
> + * If we are logging everything (at CPU online) or this
> + * is a corrected error, then we must log it.
> */
> - if (!(flags & MCP_UC) &&
> - (m.status & (mca_cfg.ser ? MCI_STATUS_S : MCI_STATUS_UC)))
> - continue;
> + if ((flags & MCP_UC) || (m.status & MCI_STATUS_UC) == 0)
> + goto log_it;
> +
> + /*
> + * Older systems that do not support software error recovery
> + * should skip over uncorrected errors, but log everything else
> + */
> + if (!mca_cfg.ser) {
> + if (m.status & MCI_STATUS_UC)
> + continue;
> + goto log_it;
> + }
> +
> + /* Log "not enabled" (speculative) errors */
> + if (!(m.status & MCI_STATUS_EN))
> + goto log_it;
> +
> + /*
> + * Log UCNA (SDM: 15.6.3 "UCR Error Classification")
> + * UC == 1 && PCC == 0 && S == 0
> + */
> + if (!(m.status & MCI_STATUS_PCC) && !(m.status & MCI_STATUS_S))
> + goto log_it;
> +
Can you please include a vendor check with this? MCi_STATUS[56] is not defined the same way on AMD systems.
Thanks,
Yazen
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-03-11 20:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-03-11 18:51 [PATCH] x86, mce: Fix machine_check_poll() tests for which errors to log Tony Luck
2019-03-11 20:25 ` Ghannam, Yazen [this message]
2019-03-11 20:42 ` Luck, Tony
2019-03-11 22:10 ` Ghannam, Yazen
2019-03-12 17:09 ` [PATCH v2] x86, mce: Fix machine_check_poll() tests for which errors Luck, Tony
2019-03-27 9:58 ` [tip:ras/core] x86/mce: Fix machine_check_poll() tests for error types tip-bot for Tony Luck
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=SN6PR12MB26399CBAEFB6C500D456255DF8480@SN6PR12MB2639.namprd12.prod.outlook.com \
--to=yazen.ghannam@amd.com \
--cc=ashok.raj@intel.com \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tony.luck@intel.com \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).