On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 02:01:31PM -0300, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> I see the value of having a threshold in BIOS, provided that it is
> well documented, and whose value can be adjusted, if needed.
>
> One of the things I wanted to implement in ras-daemon were an
> algorithm that would be doing such threshold in software.
We have that now in the kernel: drivers/ras/cec.c
We did it exactly for that purpose - not upsetting users unnecessarily.
> The thing with a BIOS threshold is that the user has no way to
> audit the algorithm. So, when BIOS start reporting such errors,
> it may be already too late: the systems may be in the verge of
> losing data (or some data was already lost).
Not only that: thresholds depend on the DIMM types which means, BIOS
must know what DIMM types are in there which I doubt. So exposing that
to configuration instead of "deciding" for people would be better.
> That's critical on cluster systems with thousands of machines:
> while the impact of disabling a cluster node to do some maintainance
> is marginal, the impact of an uncorrected error on a single
> machine may compromise weeks of expensive processing.
>
> That's why some users prefer to monitor every single corrected
> error, and compare with the probability distribution they
> know that the risk of uncorrected errors is acceptable.
Yap, you need to have stuff like that configurable - BIOS can't predict
all possible use cases.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply.
--
--
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
