Re: [PATCH] New way of storing MCA/INIT logs

From: Robin Holt <>
Date: 2008-03-12 01:32:47
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 03:07:20PM +0100, Zoltan Menyhart wrote:
> Let me ask again: do you expect _independent_ MCAs to happen?
> If you have got a estimation of the probability of independent
> MCAs happening at a same time, different from what I calculated,
> then please share it with us.
> If the MCAs are the consequences of the same error event, then
> you can find out what they are, where they are from 2 or 3 logs.
> The code actual tries to recover local MCAs only. They are:
> - TLB errors: per CPU local. As the CPUs are much more reliable
>  then the other components, e.g. the memory, having two or
>  more CPUs with corrupted TLBs at the same time is really unlikely.
> - I/O or memory read errors:
>  + One error has affected N CPUs: the first log is enough.
>  + More than one independent error at the same time: assuming
>    my estimations are more or less correct...

I don't know enough in this area to be of much use, but I do recall
times where a customer machine has run into an error and the neither the
first nor last record was of any use, but one of the intermediate
records.  I recall taking nearly a day to find the critical difference
and I vaguely recall it was on the order of 120 records and the useful
record was in the early 80s.  Russ certainly has more experience in this

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Received on Wed Mar 12 01:33:05 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2008-03-12 01:33:20 EST