On Fri, 2015-05-01 at 11:43 -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 11:19 AM, Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@xxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Fri, 2015-05-01 at 11:22 -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> >> On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 10:48 AM, Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@xxxxxx> wrote:
> >> > On Tue, 2015-04-28 at 14:24 -0400, Dan Williams wrote:
> >> >> Register the memory devices described in the nfit as libnd 'dimm'
> >> >> devices on an nd bus. The kernel assigned device id for dimms is
> >> >> dynamic. If userspace needs a more static identifier it should consult
> >> >> a provider-specific attribute. In the case where NFIT is the provider,
> >> >> the 'nmemX/nfit/handle' or 'nmemX/nfit/serial' attributes may be used
> >> >> for this purpose.
> >> > :
> >> >> +
> >> >> +static int nd_acpi_register_dimms(struct acpi_nfit_desc *acpi_desc)
> >> >> +{
> >> >> + struct nfit_mem *nfit_mem;
> >> >> +
> >> >> + list_for_each_entry(nfit_mem, &acpi_desc->dimms, list) {
> >> >> + struct nd_dimm *nd_dimm;
> >> >> + unsigned long flags = 0;
> >> >> + u32 nfit_handle;
> >> >> +
> >> >> + nfit_handle = __to_nfit_memdev(nfit_mem)->nfit_handle;
> >> >> + nd_dimm = nd_acpi_dimm_by_handle(acpi_desc, nfit_handle);
> >> >> + if (nd_dimm) {
> >> >> + /*
> >> >> + * If for some reason we find multiple DCRs the
> >> >> + * first one wins
> >> >> + */
> >> >> + dev_err(acpi_desc->dev, "duplicate DCR detected: %s\n",
> >> >> + nd_dimm_name(nd_dimm));
> >> >> + continue;
> >> >> + }
> >> >> +
> >> >> + if (nfit_mem->bdw && nfit_mem->memdev_pmem)
> >> >> + flags |= NDD_ALIASING;
> >> >
> >> > Does this check work for a NVDIMM card which has multiple pmem regions
> >> > with label info, but does not have any bdw region configured?
> >>
> >> If you have multiple pmem regions then you don't have aliasing and
> >> don't need a label. You'll get an nd_namespace_io per region.
> >>
> >> > The code assumes that namespace_pmem (NDD_ALIASING) and namespace_blk
> >> > have label info. There may be an NVDIMM card with a single blk region
> >> > without label info.
> >>
> >> I'd really like to suggest that labels are only for resolving aliasing
> >> and that if you have a BLK-only NVDIMM you'll get an automatic
> >> namespace created the same as a PMEM-only. Partitioning is always
> >> there to provide sub-divisions of a namespace. The only reason to
> >> support multiple BLK-namespaces per-region is to give each a different
> >> sector size. I may eventually need to relent on this position, but
> >> I'd really like to understand the use case for requiring labels when
> >> aliasing is not present as it seems like a waste to me.
> >
> > By looking at the callers of is_namespace_pmem() and is_namespace_blk(),
> > such as nd_namespace_label_update(), I am concerned that the namespace
> > types are also used for indicating the presence a label. Is it OK for
> > nd_namespace_label_update() to do nothing when there is no aliasing?
Did you forget to answer this question? I am not asking to have a
label. I am asking if the namespace types can handle it correctly.
Restating the nd_namespace_label_update() example:
- namespace_io case: Skip, but a label may still exist. Correct?
- namespace_blk case: Proceed, but blk does not require a label.
> >> > Instead of using the namespace types to assume the label info, how about
> >> > adding a flag to indicate the presence of the label info? This avoids
> >> > the separation of namespace_io and namespace_pmem for the same pmem
> >> > driver.
> >>
> >> To what benefit?
> >
> > Why do they need to be separated? Having alias or not should not make
> > the pmem namespace different.
>
> The intent is to maximize the number of devices that can be
> immediately attached to nd_pmem and nd_blk without user intervention.
I agree with your intention. Again, I am not asking to have a label.
> nd_namespace_io is a pmem namespace where the boundaries are 100%
> described by the NFIT / parent-region.
Thanks,
-Toshi
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
