Re: [PATCH] RAS: Add a tracepoint for reporting memory controllerevents

[Borislav Petkov]

On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 01:13:17PM -0300, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> > Why are we even exporting grain actually with each tracepoint
> > invocation? This is the granularity of reported error in bytes, and it,
> > as such, is statically assigned to a value in each driver. Userspace can
> > certainly figure out that value in a different way.
> 
> The API doesn't export the grain, except via the tracepoint/printk.

And this is exactly my question: if it is a static value which is set
once per driver, why do we have to issue it with _every_ tracepoint
invocation? Room in the per-cpu trace buffers is not for free.

> > But the more important question is: does the grain help us when handling
> > the error info in userspace?
> > 
> > It tells us that at this physical address with "grain" granularity we
> > had an error. So?
> 
> While a certain number of corrected errors that happened on different, sparsed,
> addresses may not mean a damaged memory, the same number of corrected errors
> happening at the same physical address/grain means that the DRAM chip that
> contains such address is damaged, so the corresponding DIMM needs to be 
> replaced.
> 
> So, the address/grain can be used by userspace algorithms to increase the
> probability that a DIMM is damaged.

I have no idea what you're saying here.

The DIMM can be pinpointed using the address only, why do you need the
grain too?

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.

Advanced Micro Devices GmbH
Einsteinring 24, 85609 Dornach
GM: Alberto Bozzo
Reg: Dornach, Landkreis Muenchen
HRB Nr. 43632 WEEE Registernr: 129 19551
--
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/