[PATCH] EDAC, pnd2: set MCE_PRIO_EDAC priority for pnd2_mce_dec notifier

[PATCH] EDAC, pnd2: set MCE_PRIO_EDAC priority for pnd2_mce_dec notifier

[Zhenzhong Duan]

...or else it has MCE_PRIO_LOWEST priority by default.

Signed-off-by: Zhenzhong Duan <zhenzhong.duan@gmail.com>
---
 drivers/edac/pnd2_edac.c | 1 +
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)

diff --git a/drivers/edac/pnd2_edac.c b/drivers/edac/pnd2_edac.c
index bc47328..368fae3 100644
--- a/drivers/edac/pnd2_edac.c
+++ b/drivers/edac/pnd2_edac.c
@@ -1434,6 +1434,7 @@ static int pnd2_mce_check_error(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long val, vo
 
 static struct notifier_block pnd2_mce_dec = {
 	.notifier_call	= pnd2_mce_check_error,
+	.priority	= MCE_PRIO_EDAC,
 };
 
 #ifdef CONFIG_EDAC_DEBUG
-- 
1.8.3.1

[PATCH] EDAC/mc: call edac_inc_ue_error() before panic

[Zhenzhong Duan]

By calling edac_inc_ue_error() before panic, we get a correct UE error
count for core dump analysis.

Signed-off-by: Zhenzhong Duan <zhenzhong.duan@gmail.com>
---
 drivers/edac/edac_mc.c | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/edac/edac_mc.c b/drivers/edac/edac_mc.c
index 75ede27..c1f23c2 100644
--- a/drivers/edac/edac_mc.c
+++ b/drivers/edac/edac_mc.c
@@ -1011,6 +1011,8 @@ static void edac_ue_error(struct edac_raw_error_desc *e)
 			e->other_detail);
 	}
 
+	edac_inc_ue_error(e);
+
 	if (edac_mc_get_panic_on_ue()) {
 		panic("UE %s%son %s (%s page:0x%lx offset:0x%lx grain:%ld%s%s)\n",
 			e->msg,
@@ -1020,8 +1022,6 @@ static void edac_ue_error(struct edac_raw_error_desc *e)
 			*e->other_detail ? " - " : "",
 			e->other_detail);
 	}
-
-	edac_inc_ue_error(e);
 }
 
 static void edac_inc_csrow(struct edac_raw_error_desc *e, int row, int chan)
-- 
1.8.3.1

Re: [PATCH] EDAC, pnd2: set MCE_PRIO_EDAC priority for pnd2_mce_dec notifier

[Luck, Tony]

On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 02:58:45PM +0800, Zhenzhong Duan wrote:
> ...or else it has MCE_PRIO_LOWEST priority by default.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Zhenzhong Duan <zhenzhong.duan@gmail.com>
> ---
>  drivers/edac/pnd2_edac.c | 1 +
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/edac/pnd2_edac.c b/drivers/edac/pnd2_edac.c
> index bc47328..368fae3 100644
> --- a/drivers/edac/pnd2_edac.c
> +++ b/drivers/edac/pnd2_edac.c
> @@ -1434,6 +1434,7 @@ static int pnd2_mce_check_error(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long val, vo
>  
>  static struct notifier_block pnd2_mce_dec = {
>  	.notifier_call	= pnd2_mce_check_error,
> +	.priority	= MCE_PRIO_EDAC,
>  };
>  
>  #ifdef CONFIG_EDAC_DEBUG
> -- 

Looks OK. I'll queue this next week (after Linus releases v5.8-rc1). It should
be merged into v5.9

Thanks

-Tony

Re: [PATCH] EDAC/mc: call edac_inc_ue_error() before panic

[Luck, Tony]

On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 02:58:46PM +0800, Zhenzhong Duan wrote:
> By calling edac_inc_ue_error() before panic, we get a correct UE error
> count for core dump analysis.

Looks accurate, and I'll add the patch to be applied. But I wonder
how big a problem it is. Isn't most of the information deriveable
from the panic message?

> 
> Signed-off-by: Zhenzhong Duan <zhenzhong.duan@gmail.com>
> ---
>  drivers/edac/edac_mc.c | 4 ++--
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/edac/edac_mc.c b/drivers/edac/edac_mc.c
> index 75ede27..c1f23c2 100644
> --- a/drivers/edac/edac_mc.c
> +++ b/drivers/edac/edac_mc.c
> @@ -1011,6 +1011,8 @@ static void edac_ue_error(struct edac_raw_error_desc *e)
>  			e->other_detail);
>  	}
>  
> +	edac_inc_ue_error(e);
> +
>  	if (edac_mc_get_panic_on_ue()) {
>  		panic("UE %s%son %s (%s page:0x%lx offset:0x%lx grain:%ld%s%s)\n",
>  			e->msg,
> @@ -1020,8 +1022,6 @@ static void edac_ue_error(struct edac_raw_error_desc *e)
>  			*e->other_detail ? " - " : "",
>  			e->other_detail);
>  	}
> -
> -	edac_inc_ue_error(e);
>  }
>  
>  static void edac_inc_csrow(struct edac_raw_error_desc *e, int row, int chan)
> -- 
> 1.8.3.1
> 

Re: [PATCH] EDAC/mc: call edac_inc_ue_error() before panic

[Zhenzhong Duan]

On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 1:19 AM Luck, Tony <tony.luck@intel.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 02:58:46PM +0800, Zhenzhong Duan wrote:
> > By calling edac_inc_ue_error() before panic, we get a correct UE error
> > count for core dump analysis.
>
> Looks accurate, and I'll add the patch to be applied. But I wonder
> how big a problem it is. Isn't most of the information deriveable
> from the panic message?

Thanks for review.
Yes, it's totally not a problem.  I'm a little too strict here.

Zhenzhong