On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 04:28:23PM +0100, Olof Johansson wrote: > On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 4:23 PM Russell King - ARM Linux admin > <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 04:12:30PM +0100, Olof Johansson wrote: > > > On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 11:57 AM Z.q. Hou <zhiqiang.hou@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi Olof, > > > > > > > > Thanks a lot for your comments! > > > > And sorry for my delay respond! > > > > > > Actually, they apply with only minor conflicts on top of current -next. > > > > > > Bjorn, any chance we can get you to pick these up pretty soon? They > > > enable full use of a promising ARM developer system, the SolidRun > > > HoneyComb, and would be quite valuable for me and others to be able to > > > use with mainline or -next without any additional patches applied -- > > > which this patchset achieves. > > > > > > I know there are pending revisions based on feedback. I'll leave it up > > > to you and others to determine if that can be done with incremental > > > patches on top, or if it should be fixed before the initial patchset > > > is applied. But all in all, it's holding up adaption by me and surely > > > others of a very interesting platform -- I'm looking to replace my > > > aging MacchiatoBin with one of these and would need PCIe/NVMe to work > > > before I do. > > > > If you're going to be using NVMe, make sure you use a power-fail safe > > version; I've already had one instance where ext4 failed to mount > > because of a corrupted journal using an XPG SX8200 after the Honeycomb > > Serror'd, and then I powered it down after a few hours before later > > booting it back up. > > > > EXT4-fs (nvme0n1p2): INFO: recovery required on readonly filesystem > > EXT4-fs (nvme0n1p2): write access will be enabled during recovery > > JBD2: journal transaction 80849 on nvme0n1p2-8 is corrupt. > > EXT4-fs (nvme0n1p2): error loading journal > > Hmm, using btrfs on mine, not sure if the exposure is similar or not. As I understand the problem, it isn't a filesystem issue. It's a data integrity issue with the NVMe over power fail, how they cache the data, and ultimately write it to the nand flash. Have a read of: https://www.kingston.com/en/solutions/servers-data-centers/ssd-power-loss-protection As NVMe and SSD are basically the same underlying technology (the host interface is different) and the issues I've heard, and now experienced with my NVMe, I think the above is a good pointer to the problems of flash mass storage. As I understand it, the problem occurs when the mapping table has not been written back to flash, power is lost without the Standby Immediate command being sent, and there is no way for the firmware to quickly save the table. On subsequent power up, the firmware has to reconstruct the mapping table, and depending on how that is done, incorrect (old?) data may be returned for some blocks. That can happen to any blocks on the drive, which means any data can be at risk from a power loss event, whether that is a power failure or after a crash. > Do you know if the SErr was due to a known issue and/or if it's > something that's fixed in production silicon? The SError is triggered by something on the PCIe side of things; if I leave the Mellanox PCIe card out, then I don't get them. The errata patches I have merged into my tree help a bit, turning the code from being unable to boot without a SError with the card plugged in, to being able to boot and last a while - but the SErrors still eventually come, maybe taking a few days... and that's without the Mellanox ethernet interface being up. > (I still can't enable SMMU since across a warm reboot it fails > *completely*, with nothing coming up and working. NXP folks, you > listening? :) Is it just a warm reboot? I thought I saw SMMU activity on a cold boot as well, implying that there were devices active that Linux did not know about. -- RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/ FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line in suburbia: sync at 12.1Mbps down 622kbps up According to speedtest.net: 11.9Mbps down 500kbps up
