Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1635111
| From | "Kani, Toshimitsu" <toshi.kani@hpe.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH] dax: add badblocks check to Device DAX |
| Date | 2017-05-03 18:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <tD50K-7GP-35@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <tD4xH-7du-9@gated-at.bofh.it> <tD4R5-7ok-37@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On Wed, 2017-05-03 at 08:52 -0700, Dan Williams wrote: > On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 8:31 AM, Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@hpe.com> > wrote: > > This is a RFC patch for seeking suggestions. It adds support of > > badblocks check in Device DAX by using region-level badblocks list. > > This patch is only briefly tested. > > > > device_dax is a well-isolated self-contained module as it calls > > alloc_dax() with dev_dax, which is private to device_dax. For > > checking badblocks, it needs to call dax_pmem to check with > > region-level badblocks. > > > > This patch attempts to keep device_dax self-contained. It adds > > check_error() to dax_operations, and dax_check_error() as a stub > > with *dev_dax and *dev pointers to convey it to dax_pmem. I am > > wondering if this is the right direction, or we should change the > > modularity to let dax_pmem call alloc_dax() with its dax_pmem (or > > I completely missed something). > > The problem is that device-dax guarantees a given fault granularity. > To make that guarantee we can't fallback from 1G or 2M mappings due > to an error. We also can't reasonably go the other way and fail > mappings that contain a badblock because that would change the blast > radius of a media error to the fault size. Does it mean we expect users to have CPUs with MCE recovery for Device DAX? Can we add an attributes like allow error-check & fall-back? Thanks, -Toshi
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
[RFC PATCH] dax: add badblocks check to Device DAX Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@hpe.com> - 2017-05-03 17:40 +0200
Re: [RFC PATCH] dax: add badblocks check to Device DAX Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> - 2017-05-03 18:00 +0200
Re: [RFC PATCH] dax: add badblocks check to Device DAX "Kani, Toshimitsu" <toshi.kani@hpe.com> - 2017-05-03 18:10 +0200
Re: [RFC PATCH] dax: add badblocks check to Device DAX Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> - 2017-05-03 18:40 +0200
Re: [RFC PATCH] dax: add badblocks check to Device DAX "Kani, Toshimitsu" <toshi.kani@hpe.com> - 2017-05-03 20:50 +0200
Re: [RFC PATCH] dax: add badblocks check to Device DAX Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> - 2017-05-03 23:50 +0200
Re: [RFC PATCH] dax: add badblocks check to Device DAX Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@intel.com> - 2017-05-04 00:00 +0200
Re: [RFC PATCH] dax: add badblocks check to Device DAX "Kani, Toshimitsu" <toshi.kani@hpe.com> - 2017-05-04 00:50 +0200
Re: [RFC PATCH] dax: add badblocks check to Device DAX Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> - 2017-05-04 01:00 +0200
Re: [RFC PATCH] dax: add badblocks check to Device DAX Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> - 2017-05-04 01:10 +0200
Re: [RFC PATCH] dax: add badblocks check to Device DAX "Kani, Toshimitsu" <toshi.kani@hpe.com> - 2017-05-04 01:30 +0200
Re: [RFC PATCH] dax: add badblocks check to Device DAX "Kani, Toshimitsu" <toshi.kani@hpe.com> - 2017-05-04 01:40 +0200
Re: [RFC PATCH] dax: add badblocks check to Device DAX Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> - 2017-05-04 04:10 +0200
Re: [RFC PATCH] dax: add badblocks check to Device DAX "Kani, Toshimitsu" <toshi.kani@hpe.com> - 2017-05-04 16:20 +0200
csiph-web