[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1454356235.7165.5.camel@hpe.com>
Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2016 12:50:35 -0700
From: Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@....com>
To: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.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 Sat, 2016-01-30 at 09:44 -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
> 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.
That sounds like a good idea to try out. Since this approach no longer
depends on patch 1/2, I will separate this change from patch 1/2.
Thanks,
-Toshi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists