On Wed, Feb 07, 2018 at 03:33:27PM +0800, Haozhong Zhang wrote:
> @@ -156,11 +157,17 @@ static void nvdimm_write_label_data(NVDIMMDevice
> *nvdimm, const void *buf,
> {
> MemoryRegion *mr;
> PCDIMMDevice *dimm = PC_DIMM(nvdimm);
> + bool is_pmem = object_property_get_bool(OBJECT(dimm->hostmem),
> + "pmem", NULL);
> uint64_t backend_offset;
>
> nvdimm_validate_rw_label_data(nvdimm, size, offset);
>
> - memcpy(nvdimm->label_data + offset, buf, size);
> + if (!is_pmem) {
> + memcpy(nvdimm->label_data + offset, buf, size);
> + } else {
> + pmem_memcpy_persist(nvdimm->label_data + offset, buf, size);
> + }Is this enough to prevent label corruption in case of power failure? pmem_memcpy_persist() is not atomic. Power failure can result in a mix of the old and new label data. If we want this operation to be 100% safe there needs to be some kind of update protocol that makes the change atomic, like a Label A and Label B area with a single Label Index field that can be updated atomically to point to the active Label A/B area. Stefan
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
