On 5/22/20 3:01 PM, Michal Suchánek wrote:
On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 02:52:30PM -0400, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
On Thu, 21 May 2020, Dan Williams wrote:
On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 10:03 AM Aneesh Kumar K.V
<aneesh.ku...@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
Moving on to the patch itself--Aneesh, have you audited other persistent
memory users in the kernel? For example, drivers/md/dm-writecache.c does
this:
static void writecache_commit_flushed(struct dm_writecache *wc, bool
wait_for_ios)
{
if (WC_MODE_PMEM(wc))
wmb(); <==========
else
ssd_commit_flushed(wc, wait_for_ios);
}
I believe you'll need to make modifications there.
Correct. Thanks for catching that.
I don't understand dm much, wondering how this will work with
non-synchronous DAX device?
That's a good point. DM-writecache needs to be cognizant of things
like virtio-pmem that violate the rule that persisent memory writes
can be flushed by CPU functions rather than calling back into the
driver. It seems we need to always make the flush case a dax_operation
callback to account for this.
dm-writecache is normally sitting on the top of dm-linear, so it would
need to pass the wmb() call through the dm core and dm-linear target ...
that would slow it down ... I remember that you already did it this way
some times ago and then removed it.
What's the exact problem with POWER? Could the POWER system have two types
of persistent memory that need two different ways of flushing?
As far as I understand the discussion so far
- on POWER $oldhardware uses $oldinstruction to ensure pmem consistency
- on POWER $newhardware uses $newinstruction to ensure pmem consistency
(compatible with $oldinstruction on $oldhardware)
Correct.
- on some platforms instead of barrier instruction a callback into the
driver is issued to ensure consistency
This is virtio-pmem only at this point IIUC.
None of this is reflected by the dm driver.
-aneesh
