linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 02/14] mm/hms: heterogenenous memory system (HMS) documentation

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <72f1141b-ffb5-71cb-8404-b55510b30267@linux.ibm.com>
Date:   Wed, 5 Dec 2018 10:06:02 +0530
From:   "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     Jerome Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>, Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     linux-mm@...ck.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        Ross Zwisler <ross.zwisler@...ux.intel.com>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        Haggai Eran <haggaie@...lanox.com>,
        Balbir Singh <balbirs@....ibm.com>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Felix Kuehling <felix.kuehling@....com>,
        Philip Yang <Philip.Yang@....com>,
        Christian König <christian.koenig@....com>,
        Paul Blinzer <Paul.Blinzer@....com>,
        Logan Gunthorpe <logang@...tatee.com>,
        John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>,
        Ralph Campbell <rcampbell@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 02/14] mm/hms: heterogenenous memory system (HMS)
 documentation

On 12/4/18 11:54 PM, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 04, 2018 at 09:06:59AM -0800, Andi Kleen wrote:
>> jglisse@...hat.com writes:
>>
>>> +
>>> +To help with forward compatibility each object as a version value and
>>> +it is mandatory for user space to only use target or initiator with
>>> +version supported by the user space. For instance if user space only
>>> +knows about what version 1 means and sees a target with version 2 then
>>> +the user space must ignore that target as if it does not exist.
>>
>> So once v2 is introduced all applications that only support v1 break.
>>
>> That seems very un-Linux and will break Linus' "do not break existing
>> applications" rule.
>>
>> The standard approach that if you add something incompatible is to
>> add new field, but keep the old ones.
> 
> No that's not how it is suppose to work. So let says it is 2018 and you
> have v1 memory (like your regular main DDR memory for instance) then it
> will always be expose a v1 memory.
> 
> Fast forward 2020 and you have this new type of memory that is not cache
> coherent and you want to expose this to userspace through HMS. What you
> do is a kernel patch that introduce the v2 type for target and define a
> set of new sysfs file to describe what v2 is. On this new computer you
> report your usual main memory as v1 and your new memory as v2.
> 
> So the application that only knew about v1 will keep using any v1 memory
> on your new platform but it will not use any of the new memory v2 which
> is what you want to happen. You do not have to break existing application
> while allowing to add new type of memory.
> 

So the knowledge that v1 is coherent and v2 is non-coherent is within 
the application? That seems really complicated from application point of 
view. Rill that v1 and v2 definition be arch and system dependent?

if we want to encode properties of a target and initiator we should do 
that as files within these directory. Something like 'is_cache_coherent'
in the target director can be used to identify whether the target is 
cache coherent or not?

-aneesh