On 12/16/20 11:42 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 2:54 PM Joao Martins <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> On 12/16/20 10:31 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
>>> On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 1:51 PM Joao Martins <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 12/16/20 6:42 PM, Verma, Vishal L wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 2020-12-16 at 11:39 +0000, Joao Martins wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/16/20 7:46 PM, Joao Martins wrote:
>>>>>>> Hey,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This series builds on top of this one[0] and does the following
>>>>>>> improvements
>>>>>>> to the Soft-Reserved subdivision:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1) Support for {create,reconfigure}-device for selecting @align
>>>>>>> (hugepage size).
>>>>>>> Here we add a '-a|--align 4K|2M|1G' option to the existing commands;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2) Listing improvements for device alignment and mappings;
>>>>>>> Note: Perhaps it is better to hide the mappings by default, and only
>>>>>>> print with -v|--verbose. This would align with ndctl, as the
>>>>>>> mappings
>>>>>>> info can be quite large.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 3) Allow creating devices from selecting ranges. This allows to keep
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> same GPA->HPA mapping as before we kexec the hypervisor with running
>>>>>>> guests:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> daxctl list -d dax0.1 > /var/log/dax0.1.json
>>>>>>> kexec -d -l bzImage
>>>>>>> systemctl kexec
>>>>>>> daxctl create -u --restore /var/log/dax0.1.json
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The JSON was what I though it would be easier for an user, given
>>>>>>> that it is
>>>>>>> the data format daxctl outputs. Alternatives could be adding
>>>>>>> multiple:
>>>>>>> --mapping <pgoff>:<start>-<end>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But that could end up in a gigantic line and a little more
>>>>>>> unmanageable I think.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This series requires this series[0] on top of Dan's patches[1]:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [0]
>>>>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-nvdimm/[email protected]/
>>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-nvdimm/159457116473.754248.7879464730875147365.st...@dwillia2-desk3.amr.corp.intel.com/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The only TODO here is docs and improving tests to validate mappings,
>>>>>>> and test
>>>>>>> the restore path.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Suggestions/comments are welcome.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> There's a couple of issues in this series regarding daxctl-reconfigure
>>>>>> options and
>>>>>> breakage of ndctl with kernels (<5.10) that do not supply a device
>>>>>> @align upon testing
>>>>>> with NVDIMMs. Plus it is missing daxctl-create.sh unit test for @align.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I will fix those and respin, and probably take out the last patch as
>>>>>> it's more RFC-ish and
>>>>>> in need of feedback.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sounds good. Any objections to releasing v70 with the initial support,
>>>>> and then adding this series on for the next one? I'm thinking I'll do a
>>>>> much quicker v72 release say in early January with this and anything
>>>>> else that missed v71.
>>>>
>>>> If we're able to wait until tomorrow, I could respin these first four
>>>> patches with the
>>>> fixes and include the align support in the initial set. Otherwise, I am
>>>> also good if you
>>>> prefer defering it to v72.
>>>
>>> Does this change the JSON output? Might be nice to keep that all in
>>> one update rather than invalidate some testing with the old format
>>> betweem v71 and v72.
>>>
>> Ugh, sent the v2 too early before seeing this.
>>
>> The only change to the output is on daxctl when listing devices for 5.10+.
>> It starts displaying an "align" key/value.
>
> No worries. Vishal and I chatted and it looks to me like your
> improvements to the provisioning flow are worthwhile to sneak into the
> v71 release if you want to include those changes as well.
The provisioning flow additions has some questions open about the daxctl
user interface. To summarize:
1) Should we always list mappings, or only list them with a -v option? Or
maybe instead of -v to use instead a new -M option which enables the
listing of mappings?
The reason being that it can get quite verbose with a device picks a lot
of mappings, hence I would imagine this info isn't necessary for the casual
daxctl listing.
2) Does the '--restore <file.json>' should instead be called it
instead '--device'? I feel the name '--restore' is too tied to one specific
way of using it when the feature can be used by a tool which wants to manage
its own range mappings. Additionally, I was thinking that if one wants to
manually add/fixup ranges more easily that we would add
a --mapping <pgoff>:<start>-<end> sort of syntax. But I suppose this could
be added later if its really desired.
And with these clarified, I could respin it over. Oh and I'm missing a
mappings test as well.
It's worth mentioning that kexec will need fixing, as dax_hmem regions
created with HMAT or manually assigned with efi_fake_mem= get lost on
kexec because we do not pass the EFI_MEMMAP conventional memory ranges
to the second kernel (only runtime code/boot services). I have a
RFC patch for x86 efi handling, but should get that conversation started
after holidays.
Joao
_______________________________________________
Linux-nvdimm mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
