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

[Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@redhat.com>]

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

> [ adding Christoph ]
>
> On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 9:43 AM, Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@redhat.com> wrote:
>> 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 think its an abuse of fsync() and gets in the way of where we might
> take userspace-pmem-flushing with new sync primitives as proposed here
> [1].

I agree that it's an abuse, and I'm happy to not go that route.  I am
still against using a sysfs file to do this WPQ flush, however.

> I'm also conscious of the shade that hch threw the last time I tried
> to abuse an existing syscall for device-dax [2].
>
>>> 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?
>
> You never need to use this mechanism to guarantee persistence, which
> is counter to what fsync() is defined to provide. This mechanism is
> only there to backstop against potential ADR failures.

You haven't answered my question.  Why should applications even need to
consider this?  Do you expect ADR to have a high failure rate?  If so,
shouldn't an application call this deep flush any time they would want
to make their state persistent?

>>> 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?
>
> The use case is device-dax users that want to reduce the impact of an
> ADR failure. Which also assumes that the platform has mechanisms to
> communicate ADR failure. This is not an interface I expect to be used
> for general purpose applications. All of those should be depending
> solely on ADR semantics.

What applications?

I remain unconvinced of the utility of the WPQ flush separate from
msync/fsync.  Either you always do the WPQ flush, or you never do it.  I
don't see the use case for doing it sometimes, and no one I've asked has
managed to come up with a concrete use case.

Cheers,
Jeff