Re: [RFC/PATCH, 1/4] readX_check() performance evaluation

From: Andi Kleen <ak_at_suse.de>
Date: 2004-01-29 05:52:46
On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 10:31:58 -0800
David Mosberger <davidm@napali.hpl.hp.com> wrote:

> >>>>> On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 18:41:37 +0100, Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de> said:
> 
>   Andi> Also in my experience from AMD64 which originally was a bit
>   Andi> aggressive on enabling MCEs: enabling MCEs increases your
>   Andi> kernel support load a lot.
> 
>   Andi> Many people have slightly buggy systems which still happen to
>   Andi> work mostly.  If you report every problem you as kernel
>   Andi> maintainer will be flooded with reports about things you can
>   Andi> nothing to do about.
> 
> I find this comment interesting.  Can you elaborate what you mean by
> "slightly buggy systems"?

e.g. one bit ECC errors in memory are quite common.  And with ECC memory 
they are not really fatal. Similar with drivers. A lot of drivers do 
bus aborts and other things regularly, but there is not necessarily 
data corruption.

-Andi
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Received on Wed Jan 28 13:55:27 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2005-08-02 09:20:21 EST