Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] x86/mce/amd: Fix inverted interrupt enablement during storm handling
Jasjeet Rangi <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | org.kernel.vger.linux-edac,org.kernel.vger.stable |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Wed, Aug 19, 2026 at 7:07 AM Yazen Ghannam <[email protected]> wrote: > > IMO, disabling the interrupt is the best way to manage the storm. The > reason for Intel to set a high limit is to keep the interrupt enabled. > The reason to keep the interrupt enabled is because the same interrupt > line is used for reporting "uncorrectable,no action" errors. This isn't > necessary on AMD because there's a separate interrupt line for those > errors: Deferred error interrupt. Agreed. Also that was the original intent of the patch that this thread/patch is fixing. From the commit message for 5c4663ed1eac ("x86/mce: Handle AMD threshold interrupt storms"): ``` But, unlike CMCI, do not set thresholds and reduce interrupt rate on a storm. Rather, disable the interrupt on the corresponding CPU and bank. Re-enable back the interrupts if enough consecutive polls of the bank show no corrected errors (30, as programmed by Intel). ``` > It's fair to set a low threshold limit. Some users want to see corrected > errors without needing to poll. And they'd like to see them ASAP. > > The threshold limit isn't much of a contributor to interrupt storms. A > stuck bit/failing device will likely trigger a storm whether the limit > is '1' or '4095'. Agreed. Thanks for clarifying. Thanks, Jasjeet