On 8/19/2021 2:10 AM, ruansy.f...@fujitsu.com wrote:
From: Jane Chu
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND v6 1/9] pagemap: Introduce ->memory_failure()
Sorry, correction in line.
On 8/19/2021 12:18 AM, Jane Chu wrote:
Hi, Shiyang,
> > > 1) What does it take and
> From: Jane Chu
> Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND v6 1/9] pagemap: Introduce ->memory_failure()
>
> Sorry, correction in line.
>
> On 8/19/2021 12:18 AM, Jane Chu wrote:
> > Hi, Shiyang,
> >
> > > > > 1) What does it take and cost to make > >
Sorry, correction in line.
On 8/19/2021 12:18 AM, Jane Chu wrote:
Hi, Shiyang,
> > > 1) What does it take and cost to make
> > > xfs_sb_version_hasrmapbt(>m_sb) to return true?
>
> Enable rmpabt feature when making xfs filesystem
> `mkfs.xfs -m rmapbt=1 /path/to/device`
> BTW,
Hi, Shiyang,
> > > 1) What does it take and cost to make
> > > xfs_sb_version_hasrmapbt(>m_sb) to return true?
>
> Enable rmpabt feature when making xfs filesystem
> `mkfs.xfs -m rmapbt=1 /path/to/device`
> BTW, reflink is enabled by default.
Thanks! I tried
mkfs.xfs -d
On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 12:52 AM ruansy.f...@fujitsu.com
wrote:
>
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Jane Chu
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND v6 1/9] pagemap: Introduce ->memory_failure()
> >
> >
> > On 8/17/2021 10:43 PM, Jane Chu wro
On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 11:08:40PM -0700, Jane Chu wrote:
>
> On 8/17/2021 10:43 PM, Jane Chu wrote:
> > More information -
> >
> > On 8/16/2021 10:20 AM, Jane Chu wrote:
> > > Hi, ShiYang,
> > >
> > > So I applied the v6 patch series to my 5.14-rc3 as it's what you
> > > indicated is what v6
> -Original Message-
> From: Jane Chu
> Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND v6 1/9] pagemap: Introduce ->memory_failure()
>
>
> On 8/17/2021 10:43 PM, Jane Chu wrote:
> > More information -
> >
> > On 8/16/2021 10:20 AM, Jane Chu wrote:
> >>
On 8/17/2021 10:43 PM, Jane Chu wrote:
More information -
On 8/16/2021 10:20 AM, Jane Chu wrote:
Hi, ShiYang,
So I applied the v6 patch series to my 5.14-rc3 as it's what you
indicated is what v6 was based at, and injected a hardware poison.
I'm seeing the same problem that was reported
More information -
On 8/16/2021 10:20 AM, Jane Chu wrote:
Hi, ShiYang,
So I applied the v6 patch series to my 5.14-rc3 as it's what you
indicated is what v6 was based at, and injected a hardware poison.
I'm seeing the same problem that was reported a while ago after the
poison was consumed
Hi, ShiYang,
So I applied the v6 patch series to my 5.14-rc3 as it's what you
indicated is what v6 was based at, and injected a hardware poison.
I'm seeing the same problem that was reported a while ago after the
poison was consumed - in the SIGBUS payload, the si_addr is missing:
**
The filesystem part of the pmem failure handling is at minimum built
on PAGE_SIZE granularity - an inheritance from general memory_failure
handling. However, with Intel's DCPMEM technology, the error blast
radius is no more than 256bytes, and might get smaller with future
hardware generation,
When memory-failure occurs, we call this function which is implemented
by each kind of devices. For the fsdax case, pmem device driver
implements it. Pmem device driver will find out the filesystem in which
the corrupted page located in. And finally call filesystem handler to
deal with this
12 matches
Mail list logo
