Re: [PATCH 1/6] x86-mce: Modify CMCI poll interval to adjust for small check_interval values.

From: Tony Luck
Date: Thu Jul 10 2014 - 14:55:16 EST

On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 10:51 AM, Havard Skinnemoen
<hskinnemoen@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> What's the typical interrupt rate during a storm? We should make it
> significantly less frequent than that, otherwise there's no point
> switching to polling.
> IIRC we've seen at least several hundred CMCIs per second, so perhaps
> 100 ms would be a reasonable minimum? Or perhaps 10 ms, which is the
> current minimum polling interval enforced by mce_timer_fn.

I don't think we have a solid point to really declare "storm!". The
CMCI rates between normal and abnormal rates are vast:

Normal rates are a few CMCI per year (or maybe per month ... if
you have a multi-terabyte machine perhaps even "per day" is normal).

So if you see two CMCI inside the same minute, you could declare
a storm. Realistically we want the threshold a bit higher.

It then becomes a balance between seeing all the errors (so our PFA
mechanisms get enough data to spot bad pages and take action) and
processing so many interrupts that we begin to take a performamce

Once we do decide there is a storm - we know we have given up on
seeing all the errors ... the polling rate will only decide how fast we
can determine that the storm has ended. I don't see a lot of value
in detecting the end at milli-second granularity. But we probably don't
want to give up minutes worth of PFA data if the storm does end.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at