On 06/28/2017 02:48 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > > On 28/06/2017 13:53, Christian Borntraeger wrote: >> This is probably more a question for Martin or Heiko, but our initial machine >> check handling seems to be older than the hwpoison infrastructure (older than >> the 2.6 git history). Historically we have killed processes with SIGSEGV on >> fatal errors and never included the BUS_MCEERR things so we still kill processes >> on errors. From an architectural point of view we can get the failing address, >> so maybe we should consider the BUS_MCEERR things for memory errors. > > Also because other architectures use SIGBUS, and QEMU uses SIGBUS too. > >> On the other hand since z196 (2010) the memory is protected with RAIM (in addition >> to ECC) and I am not aware of any field incidence where HW was not able to recover >> since the introduction of RAIM the pressure to do that is pretty small. >> >> If we decide to do that, this would require additional changes for KVM - we would then >> need to translate the host address into a guest address or as V1 unset the valid >> bit for the failing address information. > > That's fine. Does s390 also do background scrubbing of memory? That Yes, the hardware does. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-s390" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
