[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] Xen mce bugfix
>>> On 27.02.13 at 11:37, "Liu, Jinsong" <jinsong.liu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>> On 27.02.13 at 10:24, "Liu, Jinsong" <jinsong.liu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> This work around an issue when test via xen-mceinj tools. >>> >>> when inject simulated error via xen-mceinj tools, >>> status ADDRV/MISCV bits are simulated hence there is >>> potential risk of #GP if h/w not really support MCi_ADDR/MISC. >>> We temporarily work around by not clean them until we have >>> clean solution. >> >> Excuse me, but - no. Changing the behavior for real MCE-s (which >> you added) for the benefit of fixing injection is a no-go IMO. Or >> are you telling us that after all that earlier change of yours is not >> really necessary (in which case we could as well revert it). >> >> Jan >> > > The reason of the former patch to clear MCi_ADDR/MISC is that it's > recommended by Intel SDM: > LOG MCA REGISTER: > SAVE IA32_MCi_STATUS; > If MISCV in IA32_MCi_STATUS > THEN > SAVE IA32_MCi_MISC; > FI; > IF ADDRV in IA32_MCi_STATUS > THEN > SAVE IA32_MCi_ADDR; > FI; > IF CLEAR_MC_BANK = TRUE > THEN > SET all 0 to IA32_MCi_STATUS; > If MISCV in IA32_MCi_STATUS > THEN > SET all 0 to IA32_MCi_MISC; > FI; > IF ADDRV in IA32_MCi_STATUS > THEN > SET all 0 to IA32_MCi_ADDR; > FI; > > For Xen mce, it's meaningful to read MCi_ADDR/MISC only when real error > occur (which indicated by MCi_STATUS), so only clear MCi_STATUS at mce > handler is an acceptable work around -- after all, to read MCi_ADDR/MISC is > pointless if MCi_STATUS is 0. So then what - revert your original patch (and ignore the SDM)? I'm not in favor of this... Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |