On Mon, Jan 16, 2023 at 12:13 PM Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jan 2023 19:38:59 +0000 Jiaqi Yan <jiaqiyan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Background
> ==========
> In the RFC for Kernel Support of Memory Error Detection [1], one advantage
> of software-based scanning over hardware patrol scrubber is the ability
> to make statistics visible to system administrators. The statistics
> include 2 categories:
> * Memory error statistics, for example, how many memory error are
> encountered, how many of them are recovered by the kernel. Note these
> memory errors are non-fatal to kernel: during the machine check
> exception (MCE) handling kernel already classified MCE's severity to
> be unnecessary to panic (but either action required or optional).
> * Scanner statistics, for example how many times the scanner have fully
> scanned a NUMA node, how many errors are first detected by the scanner.
>
> The memory error statistics are useful to userspace and actually not
> specific to scanner detected memory errors, and are the focus of this RFC.
I assume this is a leftover and this is no longer "RFC".
I'd normally sit back and await reviewer input, but this series is
simple, so I'll slurp it up so we get some testing while that review is
ongoing.
Ah, yes, my typo, my intent is PATCH.
I did test the patches on several test hosts I have, but more testing is always better. Thanks, Andrew!
