On Sat, Jan 09, 2016 at 05:40:05PM -0800, Tony Luck wrote:
> BUT ... it's all going to be very messy. We don't have any CPUID
> capability bits to say whether we support recovery, or which instructions
> are good/bad choices for recovery.
We can always define synthetic ones and set them after having checked
MCA capability bits, f/m/s, etc., maybe even based on the list you're
supplying...
> Linux code recently got some recovery bits for AMD cpus ... I don't
> know what the story is on which models support this,
You mean this?
/*
* overflow_recov is supported for F15h Models 00h-0fh
* even though we don't have a CPUID bit for it.
*/
if (c->x86 == 0x15 && c->x86_model <= 0xf)
mce_flags.overflow_recov = 1;
If so, that's just an improvement which makes MCi_STATUS[Overflow] MCEs
non-fatal.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply.
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>