[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wgnJd_qY1wGc0KcoGrNz3Mp9-8mQFMDLoTXvEMVtAxyZQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2019 17:07:43 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-nvdimm <linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org>,
Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
"Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] device-dax for 5.1: PMEM as RAM
On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 8:37 AM Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com> wrote:
>
> Another feature the userspace tooling can support for the PMEM as RAM
> case is the ability to complete an Address Range Scrub of the range
> before it is added to the core-mm. I.e at least ensure that previously
> encountered poison is eliminated.
Ok, so this at least makes sense as an argument to me.
In the "PMEM as filesystem" part, the errors have long-term history,
while in "PMEM as RAM" the memory may be physically the same thing,
but it doesn't have the history and as such may not be prone to
long-term errors the same way.
So that validly argues that yes, when used as RAM, the likelihood for
errors is much lower because they don't accumulate the same way.
> The driver can also publish an
> attribute to indicate when rep; mov is recoverable, and gate the
> hotplug policy on the result. In my opinion a positive indicator of
> the cpu's ability to recover rep; mov exceptions is a gap that needs
> addressing.
Is there some way to say "don't raise MC for this region"? Or at least
limit it to a nonfatal one?
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists