On Mon, Jan 16, 2023 at 12:13 PM Andrew Morton wrote: > On Mon, 16 Jan 2023 19:38:59 +0000 Jiaqi Yan wrote: > > > Background > > ========== > > In the RFC for Kernel Support of Memory Error Detection [1], one > advantage > > of software-based scanning over hardware patrol scrubber is the ability > > to make statistics visible to system administrators. The statistics > > include 2 categories: > > * Memory error statistics, for example, how many memory error are > > encountered, how many of them are recovered by the kernel. Note these > > memory errors are non-fatal to kernel: during the machine check > > exception (MCE) handling kernel already classified MCE's severity to > > be unnecessary to panic (but either action required or optional). > > * Scanner statistics, for example how many times the scanner have fully > > scanned a NUMA node, how many errors are first detected by the scanner. > > > > The memory error statistics are useful to userspace and actually not > > specific to scanner detected memory errors, and are the focus of this > RFC. > > I assume this is a leftover and this is no longer "RFC". > > I'd normally sit back and await reviewer input, but this series is > simple, so I'll slurp it up so we get some testing while that review is > ongoing. > Ah, yes, my typo, my intent is PATCH. I did test the patches on several test hosts I have, but more testing is always better. Thanks, Andrew!