* Huang Ying <ying.huang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> - How to deal with ring-buffer overflow? For example, there is full of > >> corrected memory error in ring-buffer, and now a recoverable memory error > >> occurs but it can not be put into perf ring buffer because of ring-buffer > >> overflow, how to deal with the recoverable memory error? > > > > The solution is to make it large enough. With *every* queueing solution there > > will be some sort of queue size limit. > > Another solution could be: > > Create two ring-buffer. One is for logging and will be read by RAS > daemon; the other is for recovering, the event record will be removed > from the ring-buffer after all 'active filters' have been run on it. > Even RAS daemon being restarted or hang, recoverable error can be taken > cared of. Well, filters will always be executed since they execute when the event is inserted - not when it's extracted. So if you worry about losing *filter* executions (and dependent policy action) - there should be no loss there, ever. But yes, the scheme you outline would work as well: a counting-only event with a filter specified - this will do no buffering at all. So ... to get the ball rolling in this area one of you guys active in RAS should really try a first approximation for the active filter approach: add a test-TRACE_EVENT() for the errors you are interested in and define a convenient way to register policy action with post-filter events. This should work even without having the 'active' portion defined at the ABI and filter-string level. Thanks, Ingo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
