[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAPcyv4hsa-DCYO-YxMCKat5y-dDvGMMgJ5D-cib2TjhyNan4NA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2016 09:44:17 -0800
From: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
To: Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@....com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>,
Ross Zwisler <ross.zwisler@...ux.intel.com>,
Vishal L Verma <vishal.l.verma@...el.com>,
micah.parrish@....com, brian.boylston@....com,
X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
"linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org" <linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Fix BTT data corruptions after crash
On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 12:43 PM, Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@....com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2016-01-28 at 12:12 -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
[..]
>> I'm wondering if we should just document that this routine does not
>> support unaligned transfers? Maybe backed by a debug mode that does
>> the alignment check.
>
> Yes, I agree. For this debug mode, do you have something in mind? Or
> should we add a new CONFIG option like CONFIG_PMEM_DEBUG?
>
I hesitated to say yes to this since some simple alignment checks
seems like a thin reason to add a new Kconfig symbol. However, one
way we can test that memcpy_to_pmem() properly bypasses the cache is
to invalidate the cache contents that it touches. This would have
caught this bug without needing to do a power cycle test. In
otherwords in debug mode run an 'invd' loop after the copy.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists