Re: [PATCH 5/9] HWPoison: add memory_failure_queue()

[Huang Ying]

On 05/17/2011 04:46 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Huang Ying <ying.huang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>> memory_failure() is the entry point for HWPoison memory error
>> recovery.  It must be called in process context.  But commonly
>> hardware memory errors are notified via MCE or NMI, so some delayed
>> execution mechanism must be used.  In MCE handler, a work queue + ring
>> buffer mechanism is used.
>>
>> In addition to MCE, now APEI (ACPI Platform Error Interface) GHES
>> (Generic Hardware Error Source) can be used to report memory errors
>> too.  To add support to APEI GHES memory recovery, a mechanism similar
>> to that of MCE is implemented.  memory_failure_queue() is the new
>> entry point that can be called in IRQ context.  The next step is to
>> make MCE handler uses this interface too.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Huang Ying <ying.huang@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>>  include/linux/mm.h  |    1 
>>  mm/memory-failure.c |   92 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>  2 files changed, 93 insertions(+)
> 
> I have to say i disagree with how this is designed and how this is exposed to 
> user-space - and i pointed this out before.
> 
> It's up to Len whether you muck up drivers/acpi/ but here you are patching mm/ 
> again ...
> 
> I just had a quick look into the current affairs of mm/memory-inject.c and it 
> has become an *even* nastier collection of hacks since the last time i 
> commented on its uglies.
> 
> Special hack upon special hack, totally disorganized code, special-purpose, 
> partly ioctl driven opaque information extraction to user-space using the 
> erst-dbg device interface. We have all the maintenance overhead and little of 
> the gains from hw error event features...

Like the name suggested, erst-dbg is only for debugging.  It is not a
user space interface.  The user space interface used by APEI now is printk.

> In this patch you add:
> 
> +struct memory_failure_entry {
> +       unsigned long pfn;
> +       int trapno;
> +       int flags;
> +};
> 
> Instead of exposing this event to other users who might be interested in these 
> events - such as the RAS daemon under development by Boris.
> 
> We have a proper framework (ring-buffer, NMI execution, etc.) for reporting 
> events, why are you not using (and extending) it instead of creating this nasty 
> looking, isolated, ACPI specific low level feature?

This patch has nothing to do with hardware error event reporting.  It is
just about hardware error recovering.

Best Regards,
Huang Ying
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/