From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755868Ab2APS1V (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Jan 2012 13:27:21 -0500 Received: from mga02.intel.com ([134.134.136.20]:64221 "EHLO mga02.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755736Ab2APS1T convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Jan 2012 13:27:19 -0500 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.67,351,1309762800"; d="scan'208";a="99191737" From: "Luck, Tony" To: Greg KH , Linus Torvalds , Kay Sievers CC: "Srivatsa S. Bhat" , Ming Lei , Djalal Harouni , Borislav Petkov , Hidetoshi Seto , Ingo Molnar , Andi Kleen , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Kay Sievers , "gouders@et.bocholt.fh-gelsenkirchen.de" , Marcos Souza , Linux PM mailing list , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , "tglx@linutronix.de" , "prasad@linux.vnet.ibm.com" , "justinmattock@gmail.com" , Jeff Chua , "Siddha, Suresh B" , Peter Zijlstra , Mel Gorman , Gilad Ben-Yossef Subject: RE: x86/mce: machine check warning during poweroff Thread-Topic: x86/mce: machine check warning during poweroff Thread-Index: AQHMz/OlOc7kfDtuEUKAYzibjjPRa5YJUWqAgAH3DQCAACx1gIAABziAgAAKkwCAACuJgIAAAzoAgADINQCAA10WgP//fHYw Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 18:27:16 +0000 Message-ID: <3908561D78D1C84285E8C5FCA982C28F01C672@ORSMSX104.amr.corp.intel.com> References: <20120111000051.GA28874@dztty> <4F10929E.8070007@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <4F10BDF7.8030306@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <4F10EB5B.5060804@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20120114144938.GA32033@suse.de> <20120116181135.GA2680@suse.de> In-Reply-To: <20120116181135.GA2680@suse.de> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.22.254.139] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > The "correct" way to fix this up would be to have a per-cpu structure > for all of the different mce things that are created in this driver > (struct device, struct mce, exception counts, work queues, polling > banks, etc.), but that seems pretty messy, and I imagine some of these > want to stay as-is for some performance issues. As I don't know this > code at all, I'm a bit leary to make that kind of change. If you get so many machine checks that you care about the performance of the handler - you may be worrying about the wrong things. I'm more concerned about maintainability of the code. Seto-san has submitted many patches re-grouping the functions inside mce.c into functional areas - keeping the data structures separated makes sense - especially if there is some goal of splitting mce.c into separate files. -Tony