Re: 2.6.0-test4 and hardware reports a non fatal incident

From: Matt Gibson (gothick_at_gothick.org.uk)
Date: 08/30/03

  • Next message: Nick Piggin: "Re: [FS Benchmark] reiser4 vs. reiserfs (3.6)" 
    To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Date:	Sat, 30 Aug 2003 13:44:56 +0100

    On Saturday 30 Aug 2003 11:49, Matt Gibson wrote:
    > On Thursday 28 Aug 2003 23:17, Randy.Dunlap wrote:
    > > Yes, the kernel has decided that your processor only has 1 Bank of
    > > MCE register data to report. I don't know how/why. Sorry.
    >
    > Could it be something to do with this (in
    > arch/i386/kernel/cpu/mcheck/k7.c)?
    >
    > if (l & (1<<8)) /* Control register present ? */
    > wrmsr (MSR_IA32_MCG_CTL, 0xffffffff, 0xffffffff);
    > nr_mce_banks = l & 0xff;
    >
    > for (i=1; i<nr_mce_banks; i++) {
    >
    > Check out the "for". Or am I reading this wrong?

    Having checked back, this was changed between test-2 and test-3. The
    checking code in k7_machine_check() still loops from 0 rather than 1. I
    think this may be leading to false reporting of problems, which may be why I
    and Tomasz are seeing these MCE messages on our Athlons.

    Anyone who knows more about this stuff care to comment? Is someone looking
    after MCE at the moment? I couldn't find out much info on it.

    Thanks,

    Matt 

    -- 
"It's the small gaps between the rain that count,
 and learning how to live amongst them."
	      -- Jeff Noon
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
  • Next message: Nick Piggin: "Re: [FS Benchmark] reiser4 vs. reiserfs (3.6)"