On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 10:36:11AM +0100, Zoltan Menyhart wrote: > Russ Anderson wrote: > > >... in other implementations SAL knows of > >the CPEI/CMCI and builds/buffers the records before the > >SAL_GET_STATE_INFO() call. > > If you mean MCAs corrected and transformed into CPEIs/CMCIs, I agree. > If you mean the platform / CPU HW originated CPEIs/CMCIs, please > explain how the SAL catches these interrupts. The difference does not change how linux should handle CPEIs/CMCIs. > I guess the differences among implementations call for a dynamically > configurable solution. I don't think so. They should appear to linux the same. > First I would have liked to discuss about the MCAs, which - in may > approach - are completely separated from the CPEIs/CMCIs. > As MCA log buffering cannot be synchronized as it is done > for the CPEIs/CMCIs, it requires different code, can we discuss > separately the mechanisms for MCAs and CPEIs/CMCIs? Yes, I agree that different code for MCA/INIT and CPEI/CMCI is the right approach. > As far as the my MCA stuff is concerned, can you agree that it is > safer than the original code? Yes. I like your approach. I want to make sure it works on larger systems. > >>From a practical perspective, I don't think the difference significantly > >changes how linux should handle CPEIs/CMCIs. Linux should try to read/log > >the CPEI/CMCI as quick as possible. The lack of SAL buffering increases > >the chance of a record getting lost (overwritten) while SAL buffering > >reduces the chance that a CPEI/CMCI record gets lost (overwritten). > >If anything, the lack of SAL buffering would be a reason for more > >linux buffers, to reduce the chance of losing records. > > I agree. > > >As stated above, from a practical perspective, I don't believe the > >difference significanlty changes how linux should behave other than > >possibly being a reason for more linux buffers. > > >My preference is for a larger N. Scaling N with system size > >may be the best solution for small & large systems. > > Can we think of some dynamic / platfom dependent way of configuring > the number of the buffers? > > E.g. my MCA stuff can start up with, say, 3 buffers by default, > and you will be able to override it by a boot command line option. How about having N be the number of actual cpus? -- Russ Anderson, OS RAS/Partitioning Project Lead SGI - Silicon Graphics Inc rja@xxxxxxx -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
|