From: Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@redhat.com>
To: Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>
Cc: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@intel.com>,
linux-nvdimm <linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
Matthew Wilcox <mawilcox@microsoft.com>,
linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Subject: Re: [RESEND 2/3] powerpc/memcpy: Add memcpy_mcsafe for pmem
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2018 16:40:26 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <x496055gzet.fsf@segfault.boston.devel.redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180405164508.7a15a770@roar.ozlabs.ibm.com> (Nicholas Piggin's message of "Thu, 5 Apr 2018 16:45:08 +1000")
Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com> writes:
> On Thu, 5 Apr 2018 15:53:07 +1000
> Balbir Singh <bsingharora@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I'm thinking about it, I wonder what "bytes remaining" mean in pmem context
>> in the context of a machine check exception. Also, do we want to be byte
>> accurate or cache-line accurate for the bytes remaining? The former is much
>> easier than the latter :)
>
> The ideal would be a linear measure of how much of your copy reached
> (or can reach) non-volatile storage with nothing further copied. You
> may have to allow for some relaxing of the semantics depending on
> what the architecture can support.
I think you've got that backwards. memcpy_mcsafe is used to copy *from*
persistent memory. The idea is to catch errors when reading pmem, not
writing to it.
> What's the problem with just counting bytes copied like usercopy --
> why is that harder than cacheline accuracy?
He said the former (i.e. bytes) is easier. So, I think you're on the
same page. :)
Cheers,
Jeff
_______________________________________________
Linux-nvdimm mailing list
Linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org
https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-nvdimm
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-04-05 20:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-04-04 23:19 [RESEND 0/3] Add support for memcpy_mcsafe Balbir Singh
2018-04-04 23:19 ` [RESEND 1/3] powerpc/mce: Bug fixes for MCE handling in kernel space Balbir Singh
2018-04-04 23:49 ` Nicholas Piggin
2018-04-05 1:11 ` Balbir Singh
2018-04-04 23:19 ` [RESEND 2/3] powerpc/memcpy: Add memcpy_mcsafe for pmem Balbir Singh
2018-04-04 23:57 ` Nicholas Piggin
2018-04-05 3:00 ` Dan Williams
2018-04-05 5:04 ` Nicholas Piggin
2018-04-05 5:53 ` Balbir Singh
2018-04-05 6:45 ` Nicholas Piggin
2018-04-05 15:00 ` Dan Williams
2018-05-01 20:57 ` Dan Williams
2018-05-02 12:36 ` Balbir Singh
2018-04-05 20:40 ` Jeff Moyer [this message]
2018-04-06 1:26 ` Nicholas Piggin
2018-04-06 9:25 ` Balbir Singh
2018-04-06 15:46 ` Luck, Tony
2018-04-04 23:19 ` [RESEND 3/3] powerpc/mce: Handle memcpy_mcsafe Balbir Singh
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=x496055gzet.fsf@segfault.boston.devel.redhat.com \
--to=jmoyer@redhat.com \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=mawilcox@microsoft.com \
--cc=mpe@ellerman.id.au \
--cc=npiggin@gmail.com \
--cc=tony.luck@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).