Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86/mce: Add mce=panic_on_ce_count to panic on a corrected error flood

"Luck, Tony" <[email protected]>
Newsgroups org.kernel.vger.linux-doc,org.kernel.vger.linux-edac,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel
Message-ID <aoxxxmM-xIpyAE_Z@agluck-desk3>
On Mon, Aug 24, 2026 at 01:29:18AM -0700, Breno Leitao wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 21, 2026 at 09:50:19AM -0700, Luck, Tony wrote:
> 
> > > Count corrected errors per bank and add mce=panic_on_ce_count=<count>
> > > and panic the host if we have more events than set.
> > 
> > FYI. I don't think this needs to be fixed, but you should be aware and
> > perhaps document the shared bank details.
> > 
> > This won't count accurately for banks that are shared by multiple logical
> > CPUs (you've inherited this from the storm detection code that introduces
> > this problem).
> > 
> > E.g. a machine check bank reporting L2 errors is shared by both logical CPUs
> > on a core on P-core systems, and by all cores on a module on E-core systems.
> 
> Good point, thanks. I had not thought about the shared bank case.
> 
> I will document it in v2, roughly like this under panic_on_ce_count=
> in kernel-parameters.txt:
> 
>         The count is kept per CPU and per bank. A bank shared by
>         several logical CPUs -- an L2 bank is shared by the SMT
> 	siblings, for instance -- has its errors split across those
> 	CPUs.
> 
> plus a line in the changelog noting that the count inherits the
> <per-CPU,per-bank> granularity of the storm tracking. Thus, there may be
> more errors logged than you expect before your panic fires. Would it be better?

Yes. Documentation like this in the commit, and under Documentation/*
gives fair notice to users.

> One question while I am here: is the approach itself something you are
> willing to take, or, just a just send patch [1/2]?

Boris is the maintainer here. So he has the final decision. My
opinion is that this is a bit niche for the kernel. Maybe this
could be handled by some user agent (mcelog? rasdaemon?) to
raise awareness to system operators about high rates of corrected
errors.
> 
> Thanks for the review,
> --breno

-Tony
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.