On Thu, 5 Apr 2018 15:04:05 +1000
Nicholas Piggin <npig...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Apr 2018 20:00:52 -0700
> Dan Williams <dan.j.willi...@intel.com> wrote:
> > [ adding Matthew, Christoph, and Tony ]
> > On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 4:57 PM, Nicholas Piggin <npig...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Thu, 5 Apr 2018 09:19:42 +1000
> > > Balbir Singh <bsinghar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> The pmem infrastructure uses memcpy_mcsafe in the pmem
> > >> layer so as to convert machine check excpetions into
> > >> a return value on failure in case a machine check
> > >> exception is encoutered during the memcpy.
> > >>
> > >> This patch largely borrows from the copyuser_power7
> > >> logic and does not add the VMX optimizations, largely
> > >> to keep the patch simple. If needed those optimizations
> > >> can be folded in.
> > >
> > > So memcpy_mcsafe doesn't return number of bytes copied?
> > > Huh, well that makes it simple.
> > Well, not in current kernels, but we need to add that support or
> > remove the direct call to copy_to_iter() in fs/dax.c. I'm looking
> > right now to add "bytes remaining" support to the x86 memcpy_mcsafe(),
> > but for copy_to_user we also need to handle bytes remaining for write
> > faults. That fix is hopefully something that can land in an early
> > 4.17-rc, but it won't be ready for -rc1.
> I wonder if the powerpc implementation should just go straight to
> counting bytes. Backporting to this interface would be trivial, but
> it would just mean there's only one variant of the code to support.
> That's up to Balbir though.
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 :)
I'd rather implement the existing interface and port/support the new interface
as it becomes available