Re: [PATCH] libnvdimm, region: sysfs trigger for nvdimm_flush()

[Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@redhat.com>]

Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> writes:

> On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 9:26 AM, Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@redhat.com> wrote:
>> Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> writes:
>>
>>> The nvdimm_flush() mechanism helps to reduce the impact of an ADR
>>> (asynchronous-dimm-refresh) failure. The ADR mechanism handles flushing
>>> platform WPQ (write-pending-queue) buffers when power is removed. The
>>> nvdimm_flush() mechanism performs that same function on-demand.
>>>
>>> When a pmem namespace is associated with a block device, an
>>> nvdimm_flush() is triggered with every block-layer REQ_FUA, or REQ_FLUSH
>>> request. However, when a namespace is in device-dax mode, or namespaces
>>> are disabled, userspace needs another path.
>>>
>>> The new 'flush' attribute is visible when it can be determined that the
>>> interleave-set either does, or does not have DIMMs that expose WPQ-flush
>>> addresses, "flush-hints" in ACPI NFIT terminology. It returns "1" and
>>> flushes DIMMs, or returns "0" the flush operation is a platform nop.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
>>
>> NACK.  This should function the same way it does for a pmem device.
>> Wire up sync.
>
> We don't have dirty page tracking for device-dax, without that I don't
> think we should wire up the current sync calls.

Why not?  Device dax is meant for the "flush from userspace" paradigm.
There's enough special casing around device dax that I think you can get
away with implementing *sync as call to nvdimm_flush.

> I do think we need a more sophisticated sync syscall interface
> eventually that can select which level of flushing is being performed
> (page cache vs cpu cache vs platform-write-buffers).

I don't.  I think this whole notion of flush, and flush harder is
brain-dead.  How do you explain to applications when they should use
each one?

> Until then I think this sideband interface makes sense and sysfs is
> more usable than an ioctl.

Well, if you're totally against wiring up sync, then I say we forget
about the deep flush completely.  What's your use case?

Cheers,
Jeff