[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAPcyv4jr0U-a521+wAL7RDca_AoUrtvO6yeY6d0UQpY7d=CHuQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 13:42:19 -0700
From: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
To: Linda Knippers <linda.knippers@....com>
Cc: "linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org" <linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org>,
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Matthew Wilcox <mawilcox@...rosoft.com>,
X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 12/16] libnvdimm, nfit: enable support for volatile ranges
On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 12:20 PM, Linda Knippers <linda.knippers@....com> wrote:
> On 06/29/2017 01:54 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
>> Allow volatile nfit ranges to participate in all the same infrastructure
>> provided for persistent memory regions.
>
> This seems to be a bit more than "other rework".
It's part of the rationale for having a "write_cache" control
attribute. There's only so much I can squeeze into the subject line,
but it is mentioned in the cover letter.
>> A resulting resulting namespace
>> device will still be called "pmem", but the parent region type will be
>> "nd_volatile".
>
> What does this look like to a user or admin? How does someone know that
> /dev/pmemX is persistent memory and /dev/pmemY isn't? Someone shouldn't
> have to weed through /sys or ndctl some other interface to figure that out
> in the future if they don't have to do that today. We have different
> names for BTT namespaces. Is there a different name for volatile ranges?
No, the block device name is still /dev/pmem. It's already the case
that you need to check behind just the name of the device to figure
out if something is actually volatile or not (see memmap=ss!nn
configurations), so I would not be in favor of changing the device
name if we think the memory might not be persistent. Moreover, I think
it was a mistake that we change the device name for btt or not, and
I'm glad Matthew talked me out of making the same mistake with
memory-mode vs raw-mode pmem namespaces. So, the block device name
just reflects the driver of the block device, not the properties of
the device, just like all other block device instances.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists