[PATCH v7 8/9] powerpc/mce: Add sysctl control for recovery action on MCE.

[Nicholas Piggin]

On Thu, 09 Aug 2018 16:34:07 +1000
Michael Ellerman <mpe at ellerman.id.au> wrote:

> "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar at linux.ibm.com> writes:
> > On 08/08/2018 08:26 PM, Michael Ellerman wrote:  
> >> Mahesh J Salgaonkar <mahesh at linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:  
> >>> From: Mahesh Salgaonkar <mahesh at linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> >>>
> >>> Introduce recovery action for recovered memory errors (MCEs). There are
> >>> soft memory errors like SLB Multihit, which can be a result of a bad
> >>> hardware OR software BUG. Kernel can easily recover from these soft errors
> >>> by flushing SLB contents. After the recovery kernel can still continue to
> >>> function without any issue. But in some scenario's we may keep getting
> >>> these soft errors until the root cause is fixed. To be able to analyze and
> >>> find the root cause, best way is to gather enough data and system state at
> >>> the time of MCE. Hence this patch introduces a sysctl knob where user can
> >>> decide either to continue after recovery or panic the kernel to capture the
> >>> dump.  
> >> 
> >> I'm not convinced we want this.
> >> 
> >> As we've discovered it's often not possible to reconstruct what happened
> >> based on a dump anyway.
> >> 
> >> The key thing you need is the content of the SLB and that's not included
> >> in a dump.
> >> 
> >> So I think we should dump the SLB content when we get the MCE (which
> >> this series does) and any other useful info, and then if we can recover
> >> we should.  
> >
> > The reasoning there is what if we got multi-hit due to some corruption 
> > in slb_cache_ptr. ie. some part of kernel is wrongly updating the paca 
> > data structure due to wrong pointer. Now that is far fetched, but then 
> > possible right?. Hence the idea that, if we don't have much insight into 
> > why a slb multi-hit occur from the dmesg which include slb content, 
> > slb_cache contents etc, there should be an easy way to force a dump that 
> > might assist in further debug.  
> 
> If you're debugging something complex that you can't determine from the
> SLB dump then you should be running a debug kernel anyway. And if
> anything you want to drop into xmon and sit there, preserving the most
> state, rather than taking a dump.

I'm not saying for a dump specifically, just some form of crash. And we
really should have an option to xmon on panic, but that's another story.

I think HA/failover kind of environments use options like this too. If
anything starts going bad they don't want to try limping along but stop
ASAP.

Thanks,
Nick