Hi Dan,
Thanks for your reply.
>
> On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 10:23 PM, Pankaj Gupta <pagupta@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Hello Dan,
> >
> >> Not a flag, but a new "Address Range Type GUID". See section "5.2.25.2
> >> System Physical Address (SPA) Range Structure" in the ACPI 6.2A
> >> specification. Since it is a GUID we could define a Linux specific
> >> type for this case, but spec changes would allow non-Linux hypervisors
> >> to advertise a standard interface to guests.
> >>
> >
> > I have added new SPA with a GUUID for this memory type and I could add
> > this new memory type in System memory map. I need help with the namespace
> > handling for this new type As mentioned in [1] discussion:
> >
> > - Create a new namespace for this new memory type
> > - Teach libnvdimm how to handle this new namespace
> >
> > I have some queries on this:
> >
> > 1] How namespace handling of this new memory type would be?
>
> This would be a namespace that creates a pmem device, but does not allow DAX.
o.k
>
> >
> > 2] There are existing namespace types:
> > ND_DEVICE_NAMESPACE_IO, ND_DEVICE_NAMESPACE_PMEM, ND_DEVICE_NAMESPACE_BLK
> >
> > How libnvdimm will handle this new name-space type in conjuction with
> > existing
> > memory type, region & namespaces?
>
> The type will be either ND_DEVICE_NAMESPACE_IO or
> ND_DEVICE_NAMESPACE_PMEM depending on whether you configure KVM to
> provide a virtual NVDIMM and label space. In other words the only
> difference between this range and a typical persistent memory range is
> that we will have a flag to disable DAX operation.
o.k. In short we have disable this flag 'QUEUE_FLAG_DAX' for this
namespace & region? Also don't execute below code for this new type?
pmem_attach_disk()
...
...
dax_dev = alloc_dax(pmem, disk->disk_name, &pmem_dax_ops);
if (!dax_dev) {
put_disk(disk);
return -ENOMEM;
}
dax_write_cache(dax_dev, wbc);
pmem->dax_dev = dax_dev;
>
> See the usage of nvdimm_has_cache() in pmem_attach_disk() as an
> example of how to pass attributes about the "region" to the the pmem
> driver.
sure.
>
> >
> > 3] For sending guest to host flush commands we still have to think about
> > some
> > async way?
>
> I thought we discussed this being a paravirtualized virtio command ring?
o.k. will implement this.
>
