lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [May]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v10 12/12] drivers/block/pmem: Map NVDIMM with ioremap_wt()
From
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 11:32 AM, Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@hp.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 2015-05-29 at 11:19 -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
>> On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 8:03 AM, Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@hp.com> wrote:
>> > On Fri, 2015-05-29 at 07:43 -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
>> >> On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 2:11 AM, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de> wrote:
>> >> > On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 09:19:04AM -0600, Toshi Kani wrote:
>> >> >> The pmem driver maps NVDIMM with ioremap_nocache() as we cannot
> :
>> >> >> - pmem->virt_addr = ioremap_nocache(pmem->phys_addr, pmem->size);
>> >> >> + pmem->virt_addr = ioremap_wt(pmem->phys_addr, pmem->size);
>> >> >> if (!pmem->virt_addr)
>> >> >> goto out_release_region;
>> >> >
>> >> > Dan, Ross, what about this one?
>> >> >
>> >> > ACK to pick it up as a temporary solution?
>> >>
>> >> I see that is_new_memtype_allowed() is updated to disallow some
>> >> combinations, but the manual seems to imply any mixing of memory types
>> >> is unsupported. Which worries me even in the current code where we
>> >> have uncached mappings in the driver, and potentially cached DAX
>> >> mappings handed out to userspace.
>> >
>> > is_new_memtype_allowed() is not to allow some combinations of mixing of
>> > memory types. When it is allowed, the requested type of ioremap_xxx()
>> > is changed to match with the existing map type, so that mixing of memory
>> > types does not happen.
>>
>> Yes, but now if the caller was expecting one memory type and gets
>> another one that is something I think the driver would want to know.
>> At a minimum I don't think we want to get emails about pmem driver
>> performance problems when someone's platform is silently degrading WB
>> to UC for example.
>
> The pmem driver creates an ioremap map to an NVDIMM range first. So,
> there will be no conflict at this point, unless there is a conflicting
> driver claiming the same NVDIMM range.

Hmm, I thought it would be WB due to this comment in is_new_memtype_allowed()

/*
* PAT type is always WB for untracked ranges, so no need to check.
*/


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-05-29 21:41    [W:0.073 / U:0.284 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site