On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 6:52 AM, Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 22 May 2018, Dan Williams wrote:
>
>> >> Except I'm being responsive.
>> >
>> > Except you're looking to immediately punt to linux-arm-kernel ;)
>>
>> Well, I'm not, not really. I'm saying drop ARM support, it's not ready.
>
> This is the worst thing to do - because once late cache flushing is
> dropped from the dm-writecache target, it could hardly be reintroduced
> again.
>
>> >> I agree with Christoph that we should
>> >> build pmem helpers at an architecture level and not per-driver. Let's
>> >> make this driver depend on ARCH_HAS_PMEM_API and require ARM to catch
>> >> up to x86 in this space. We already have PowerPC enabling PMEM API, so
>> >> I don't see an unreasonable barrier to ask the same of ARM. This patch
>> >> is not even cc'd to linux-arm-kernel. Has the subject been broached
>> >> with them?
>> >
>> > No idea. Not by me.
>> >
>> > The thing is, I'm no expert in pmem. You are. Coordinating the change
>> > with ARM et al feels unnecessarily limiting and quicky moves outside my
>> > control.
>> >
>> > Serious question: Why can't this code land in this dm-writecache target
>> > and then be lifted (or obsoleted)?
>>
>> Because we already have an API, and we don't want to promote local
>> solutions to global problems, or carry unnecessary technical debt.
>>
>> >
>> > But if you think it worthwhile to force ARM to step up then fine. That
>> > does limit the availability of using writecache on ARM while they get
>> > the PMEM API together.
>> >
>> > I'll do whatever you want.. just put the smack down and tell me how it
>> > is ;)
>>
>> I'd say just control the variables you can control. Drop the ARM
>> support if you want to move forward and propose extensions / updates
>
> What do we gain by dropping it?
>
>> to the pmem api for x86 and I'll help push those since I was involved
>> in pushing the x86 pmem api in the first instance. That way you don't
>> need to touch this driver as new archs add their pmem api enabling.
>
> The pmem API is x86-centric - that the problem.
When I read your patch I came away with the impression that ARM had
not added memcpy_flushcache() yet and you were working around that
fact. Now that I look, ARM *does* define memcpy_flushcache() and
you're avoiding it. You use memcpy+arch_wb_pmem where arch_wb_pmem on
ARM64 is defined as __clean_dcache_area_pop(dst, cnt). The ARM
memcpy_flushcache() implementation is:
memcpy(dst, src, cnt);
__clean_dcache_area_pop(dst, cnt);
So, I do not see how what you're doing is any less work unless you are
flushing less than you copy?
If memcpy_flushcache() is slower than memcpy + arch_wb_pmem then the
ARM implementation is broken and that needs to be addressed not worked
around in a driver.
--
dm-devel mailing list
dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
