On Fri, 2006-03-10 at 13:13 -0800, Dave Peterson wrote:
> On Friday 10 March 2006 11:33, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > > Regarding the actual call to run it, I guess it depends on which of
> > > the following you prefer:
> > >
> > > Scenario A
> > > ----------
> > > A more decentralized layout. Here, the controls that govern the
> > > error handling behavior for a given category of hardware (a
> > > category might be "PCI devices" or "devices that use bus
> > > technology XYZ") are grouped together with other stuff for that
> > > category.
> > this would basically make edac a place to report "help something went to
> > the gutter". Sure. I see that useful.
> > In fact there are 3 layers then
> > 1) low level "do check" function
> I'm a bit unclear here. Are you thinking of a single "do check"
> function that bus-specific code and chipset-specific code can hook
> into, or individual "do check" functions for various bus-specific and
> chipset-specific modules?
hmm ok so I want a function that takes a device as parameter, and checks
the state of that device for errors. Internally that probably has to go
via a function pointer somewhere to a device specific check method.
Or maybe a per test-type (pci parity / ECC / etc) check
int pci_check_parity_errors(struct pci_dev *dev, int flags);
something like that, or pci_check_and_clear_parity_errors()
(although that gets too long :)
drivers can call that, say, after firmware init or something to validate
their device is sanely connected. Maybe pci_enable_device() could call
This also needs a pci_suspend_parity_check() ... _resume_ ... so that
the driver can temporarily disable any checks, for example during device
reset/init. And then just before resume, it manually clears a check.
> > 2) per bus code that calls the do check functions and whatever is needed
> > for bus checks
> > 3) "EDAC" central command, which basically gathers all failure reports
> > and does something with them (push them to userspace or implement the
> > userspace chosen policy (panic/reboot/etc))
> Are you suggesting something like the following?
> - The controls that determine how the error checking is done are
> located within the various hardware subsystems. For instance,
> with PCI parity checking, this would include stuff like setting
> the polling frequency and determining which devices to check.
yes. I would NOT make it overly tunable btw. For many things a sane
default can be chosen, and the effect of picking a different tuning
isn't all that big. Maybe think of it this way: a tuneable to a large
degree is an excuse for not determining the right value / heuristic in
the first place.
> - When an error is actually detected, the subsystem that detected
> the error (for instance, PCI) would feed the error information
> to EDAC. Then EDAC would determine how to respond to the error
> (for instance, push it to userspace or implement the
> userspace-chosen policy (panic/reboot/etc))
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]