Ok,
lemme split this out into a separate thread and add Tony.
On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 06:20:35PM +0000, James Morse wrote:
> > Grrr, what an effing mess that code is! There's hest_disable *and*
> > ghes_disable. Do we really need them both?
>
> ghes_disable lets you ignore the firmware-first notifications, but still 'use'
> the other error sources:
> drivers/pci/pcie/aer.c picks out the three AER types, and uses apei_hest_parse()
> to know if firmware is controlling AER, even if ghes_disable is set.
Ok, that kinda makes sense.
But look what our sparse documentation says:
hest_disable [ACPI]
Disable Hardware Error Source Table (HEST) support;
corresponding firmware-first mode error processing
logic will be disabled.
and from looking at the code, hest_disable is kinda like the master
switch because it gets evaluated first. Right?
Which sounds to me like we want a generic switch which does:
apei=disable_ff_notifications
to explicitly do exactly that - disable the firmware-first notification
method. And then the master switch will be
apei=disable
And we'll be able to pass whatever options here instead of all those
different _disable switches which need lotsa code staring to figure out
what exactly they even do in the first place.
> x86's arch_apei_enable_cmcff() looks like it disables MCE to get firmware to
> handle them. hest_disable would stop this, but instead ghes_disable keeps that,
> and stops the NOTIFY_NMI being registered.
Yeah, and when you boot with ghes_disable, that would say:
pr_info("HEST: Enabling Firmware First mode for corrected errors.\n");
but there will be no notifications and users will scratch heads.
> (do you consider cmdline arguments as ABI, or hard to justify and hard to remove?)
I don't, frankly. I guess we will have to have a transition period where
we keep them and issue a warning message that users should switch to
"apei=xxx" instead and remove them after a lot of time has passed.
> I don't think its broken enough to justify ripping them out. A user of
> ghes_disable would be someone with broken firmware-first handling of AER. They
> need to know firmware is changing the register values behind their back (so need
> to parse the HEST), but want to ignore the junk notifications. It doesn't sound
> like an unlikely scenario.
Yes, that makes sense.
But I think we should add a generic cmdline arg with suboptions and
document exactly what all those do. Similar to "mce=" on x86 which is
nicely documented in Documentation/x86/x86_64/boot-options.txt.
Right now, only a few people understand what those do and in some of the
cases they do too much/the wrong thing.
Thoughts?
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
