On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 3:55 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 09:04:22PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 4:58 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 08:18:23PM -0400, Dan Williams wrote:
>> >> diff --git a/include/linux/io.h b/include/linux/io.h
>> >> index 080a4fbf2ba4..2983b6e63970 100644
>> >> --- a/include/linux/io.h
>> >> +++ b/include/linux/io.h
>> >> @@ -192,4 +192,15 @@ static inline int arch_phys_wc_index(int handle)
>> >> #endif
>> >> #endif
>> >>
>> >> +enum {
>> >> + MEMREMAP_WB = 1 << 0,
>> >> + MEMREMAP_WT = 1 << 1,
>> >> + MEMREMAP_WC = 1 << 2,
>> >> + MEMREMAP_STRICT = 1 << 3,
>> >> + MEMREMAP_CACHE = MEMREMAP_WB,
>> >> +};
>> >
>> > A few things:
>> >
>> > 1) You'll need MEMREMAP_UC now as well now.
>>
>> Why? I don't think it fits. If there are any I/O areas (non-memory)
>> in the range then it simply is not "memory" and should not be using
>> memremap(). In other words it seems like you really do need to heed
>> the __iomem annotation in the return value from ioremap_uc().
>
> One can use a similar argument for some areas of use of write-combining,
> what litmus test are you using to add a flag above? Why would WC be OK
> and not UC? WC is a cache hack on x86...
I should remove WC from the list for now, I'm not converting
ioremap_wc() to memremap at this time.
That said it's not the same argument. A driver calling ioremap_wc()
is explicitly signing up to handle flushing the write-combine buffer
and the expectation is that there are no I/O ranges in the mapping
that would be affected by write combining. An ioremap_uc() mapping
says "careful there are I/O sensitive registers in this range".
>> > 2) as you are doing all this sweep over architectures on this please
>> > also address the lack of ioremap_*() variant implemention to return
>> > NULL, ie not supported, because we've decided for now that so long
>> > as the semantics are not well defined we can't expect architectures
>> > to get it right unless they are doing the work themselves, and the
>> > old strategy of just #defin'ing a variant to iorempa_nocache() which
>> > folks tended to just can lead to issues. In your case since you are
>> > jumping to the flags implementation this might be knocking two birds
>> > with one stone.
>>
>> I'm not going to do a general sweep for this as the expectation that
>> ioremap silently falls back if a mapping type is not supported is
>> buried all over the place.
>
> But it does not. It cannot. The reason, as I noted in a commit now merged
> on tip, is that the default wrappers are nested under #ifndef CONFIG_MMU,
> whereas really this should have just been used for ioremap() and iounmap().
>
> That is, the ioremap_*() variants should have a definition even for !CONFIG_MMU,
> and since we actually don't want to enable sloppy defines of this the sensible
> defaults should be to return NULL on variants -- for both !CONFIG_MMU
> and for CONFIG_MMU. The way to fix then then is to move the default variant
> definitions out from #ifndef CONFIG_MMU and have them return NULL. We may
> be able to have them return something not-null by default always but we
> first need to beat to death the topic of semantics with all architecture
> folks to each that agreement. Until then the variants shoudl just return
> NULL encouraging arch developers to supply a proper implementation.
That clean up is orthogonal to memremap. memremap will return NULL
for unsupported mapping types.
>> That said, new usages and conversions to
>> memremap() can be strict about this. For now, I'm only handling
>> ioremap_cache() and ioremap_wt() conversions.
>
> OK, if you are not going to do this let me know and I can do it.
Yes, go ahead.
>> > 3) For the case that architectures have no MMU we currently do a direct
>> > mapping such as what you try to describe to do with memremap(). I wonder
>> > if its worth it to then enable that code to just map to memremap(). That
>> > throws off your usage of CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_MEMREMAP if we want to repurpose
>> > that implementation for no the MMU case, unless of course you just have a
>> > __memremap() which does the default basic direct mapping implementation.
>>
>> Yes, in the next rev of this series I am having it fall back to direct
>> mappings where it makes sense.
>>
>> > 4) Since we are all blaming semantics on our woes I'd like to ask for
>> > some effort on semantics to be well defined. Semantics here sholud cover
>> > some form of Documentation but also sparse annotation checks and perhaps
>> > Coccinelle grammar rules for how things should be done. This should not only
>> > cover general use but also if there are calls which depend on a cache
>> > type to have been set. If we used sparse annotations it may meen a
>> > different return type for each cache type. Not sure if we want this.
>> > If we went with grammar rules I'm looking to for instance have in place
>> > rules on scripts/coccinelle which would allow developers to use
>>
>> memremap() explicitly does not want get into arch semantics debates.
>
> Why? The ioremap() cluster fuck seems like a good example to learn from.
>
> I was also under the impression you are going to provide a new API with flags
> to kill / make old ioremap() varaints use this new API with the flags passed?
> Is that not the case ?
Yes, I'll post the new series shortly once 0day says there are no
build regressions.
>> The pointer returned from memremap() is a "void *" that can be used as
>> normal memory. If it is a normal pointer I don't see the role for
>> sparse annotation.
>
> Hrm, do we want to *prevent* certain to use the memory range when it is direct?
Can you give an example scenario?
>
>> > make coccicheck M=foo/
>> >
>> > to find issues. I can perhaps help with this, but we'd need to do a good
>> > sweep here to not only cover good territory but also get folks to agree
>> > on things.
>> >
>> > 5) This may be related to 4), not sure. There are aligment requirements we
>> > should probably iron out for architectures. How will we annotate these
>> > requirements or allow architectures to be pedantic over these requirements?
>>
>> What requirements beyond PAGE_SIZE alignment would we need to worry about?
>
> That's a big concern some folks expressed, architecture folks would know more.
>
> One last thing: if you are providing a new API to replace a series of old
> symbols that were used before (I though you were working towards this for all
> ioremap_*() variants) we have to take care to ensure that any symbol that is
> currently exported with EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL() does not get an EXPORT_SYMBOL()
> wrapper-escape since we do not want proprietary drivers to make use these
> alternatives.
Yes, memremap() is inheriting the export level of ioremap_cache.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
