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

[Ingo Molnar]

* Huang Ying <ying.huang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> >> - How to deal with ring-buffer overflow?  For example, there is full of 
> >>   corrected memory error in ring-buffer, and now a recoverable memory error 
> >>   occurs but it can not be put into perf ring buffer because of ring-buffer 
> >>   overflow, how to deal with the recoverable memory error?
> > 
> > The solution is to make it large enough. With *every* queueing solution there 
> > will be some sort of queue size limit.
> 
> Another solution could be:
> 
> Create two ring-buffer. One is for logging and will be read by RAS
> daemon; the other is for recovering, the event record will be removed
> from the ring-buffer after all 'active filters' have been run on it.
> Even RAS daemon being restarted or hang, recoverable error can be taken
> cared of.

Well, filters will always be executed since they execute when the event is 
inserted - not when it's extracted.

So if you worry about losing *filter* executions (and dependent policy action) 
- there should be no loss there, ever.

But yes, the scheme you outline would work as well: a counting-only event with 
a filter specified - this will do no buffering at all.

So ... to get the ball rolling in this area one of you guys active in RAS 
should really try a first approximation for the active filter approach: add a 
test-TRACE_EVENT() for the errors you are interested in and define a convenient 
way to register policy action with post-filter events. This should work even 
without having the 'active' portion defined at the ABI and filter-string level.

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
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/