On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 06:50:15PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 1:41 PM Aneesh Kumar K.V
> <aneesh.ku...@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> >
> > Michal Suchánek <msucha...@suse.de> writes:
> >
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 07:27:20PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> > >> nvdimm expect the flush routines to just mark the cache clean. The 
> > >> barrier
> > >> that mark the store globally visible is done in nvdimm_flush().
> > >>
> > >> Update the papr_scm driver to a simplified nvdim_flush callback that do
> > >> only the required barrier.
> > >>
> > >> Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.ku...@linux.ibm.com>
> > >> ---
> > >>  arch/powerpc/lib/pmem.c                   |  6 ------
> > >>  arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/papr_scm.c | 13 +++++++++++++
> > >>  2 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> > >>
> > >> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/lib/pmem.c b/arch/powerpc/lib/pmem.c
> > >> index 5a61aaeb6930..21210fa676e5 100644
> > >> --- a/arch/powerpc/lib/pmem.c
> > >> +++ b/arch/powerpc/lib/pmem.c
> > >> @@ -19,9 +19,6 @@ static inline void __clean_pmem_range(unsigned long 
> > >> start, unsigned long stop)
> > >>
> > >>      for (i = 0; i < size >> shift; i++, addr += bytes)
> > >>              asm volatile(PPC_DCBSTPS(%0, %1): :"i"(0), "r"(addr): 
> > >> "memory");
> > >> -
> > >> -
> > >> -    asm volatile(PPC_PHWSYNC ::: "memory");
> > >>  }
> > >>
> > >>  static inline void __flush_pmem_range(unsigned long start, unsigned 
> > >> long stop)
> > >> @@ -34,9 +31,6 @@ static inline void __flush_pmem_range(unsigned long 
> > >> start, unsigned long stop)
> > >>
> > >>      for (i = 0; i < size >> shift; i++, addr += bytes)
> > >>              asm volatile(PPC_DCBFPS(%0, %1): :"i"(0), "r"(addr): 
> > >> "memory");
> > >> -
> > >> -
> > >> -    asm volatile(PPC_PHWSYNC ::: "memory");
> > >>  }
> > >>
> > >>  static inline void clean_pmem_range(unsigned long start, unsigned long 
> > >> stop)
> > >> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/papr_scm.c 
> > >> b/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/papr_scm.c
> > >> index 9c569078a09f..9a9a0766f8b6 100644
> > >> --- a/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/papr_scm.c
> > >> +++ b/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/papr_scm.c
> > >> @@ -630,6 +630,18 @@ static int papr_scm_ndctl(struct 
> > >> nvdimm_bus_descriptor *nd_desc,
> > >>
> > >>      return 0;
> > >>  }
> > >> +/*
> > >> + * We have made sure the pmem writes are done such that before calling 
> > >> this
> > >> + * all the caches are flushed/clean. We use dcbf/dcbfps to ensure this. 
> > >> Here
> > >> + * we just need to add the necessary barrier to make sure the above 
> > >> flushes
> > >> + * are have updated persistent storage before any data access or data 
> > >> transfer
> > >> + * caused by subsequent instructions is initiated.
> > >> + */
> > >> +static int papr_scm_flush_sync(struct nd_region *nd_region, struct bio 
> > >> *bio)
> > >> +{
> > >> +    arch_pmem_flush_barrier();
> > >> +    return 0;
> > >> +}
> > >>
> > >>  static ssize_t flags_show(struct device *dev,
> > >>                        struct device_attribute *attr, char *buf)
> > >> @@ -743,6 +755,7 @@ static int papr_scm_nvdimm_init(struct papr_scm_priv 
> > >> *p)
> > >>      ndr_desc.mapping = &mapping;
> > >>      ndr_desc.num_mappings = 1;
> > >>      ndr_desc.nd_set = &p->nd_set;
> > >> +    ndr_desc.flush = papr_scm_flush_sync;
> > >
> > > AFAICT currently the only device that implements flush is virtio_pmem.
> > > How does the nfit driver get away without implementing flush?
> >
> > generic_nvdimm_flush does the required barrier for nfit. The reason for
> > adding ndr_desc.flush call back for papr_scm was to avoid the usage
> > of iomem based deep flushing (ndr_region_data.flush_wpq) which is not
> > supported by papr_scm.
> >
> > BTW we do return NULL for ndrd_get_flush_wpq() on power. So the upstream
> > code also does the same thing, but in a different way.
> >
> >
> > > Also the flush takes arguments that are completely unused but a user of
> > > the pmem region must assume they are used, and call flush() on the
> > > region rather than arch_pmem_flush_barrier() directly.
> >
> > The bio argument can help a pmem driver to do range based flushing in
> > case of pmem_make_request. If bio is null then we must assume a full
> > device flush.
> 
> The bio argument isn't for range based flushing, it is for flush
> operations that need to complete asynchronously.
How does the block layer determine that the pmem device needs
asynchronous fushing?

The flush() was designed for the purpose with the bio argument and only
virtio_pmem which is fulshed asynchronously used it. Now that papr_scm
resuses it fir different purpose how do you tell?

Thanks

Michal
_______________________________________________
Linux-nvdimm mailing list -- linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org
To unsubscribe send an email to linux-nvdimm-le...@lists.01.org

Reply via email to