Message-ID: <CAPcyv4gD1SBksfjRWAY5Jn3uviGUu0E=dD-fw7Ti-i0QYFFnbw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 16 Jan 2019 14:06:20 -0800
From:   Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
To:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
Cc:     Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave@...1.net>, Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@...el.com>,
        Ross Zwisler <zwisler@...nel.org>,
        Vishal L Verma <vishal.l.verma@...el.com>,
        Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
        linux-nvdimm <linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>,
        Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>,
        Yaowei Bai <baiyaowei@...s.chinamobile.com>,
        Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] dax: "Hotplug" persistent memory for use like normal RAM

On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 1:40 PM Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com> wrote:
>
> On 1/16/19 1:16 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 12:25 PM Dave Hansen
> > <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> >> From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>
> >> Currently, a persistent memory region is "owned" by a device driver,
> >> either the "Direct DAX" or "Filesystem DAX" drivers.  These drivers
> >> allow applications to explicitly use persistent memory, generally
> >> by being modified to use special, new libraries.
> >
> > Is there any documentation about exactly what persistent memory is?
> > In Documentation/, I see references to pstore and pmem, which sound
> > sort of similar, but maybe not quite the same?
>
> One instance of persistent memory is nonvolatile DIMMS.  They're
> described in great detail here: Documentation/nvdimm/nvdimm.txt
>
> >> +config DEV_DAX_KMEM
> >> +       def_bool y
> >
> > Is "y" the right default here?  I periodically see Linus complain
> > about new things defaulting to "on", but I admit I haven't paid enough
> > attention to know whether that would apply here.
> >
> >> +       depends on DEV_DAX_PMEM   # Needs DEV_DAX_PMEM infrastructure
> >> +       depends on MEMORY_HOTPLUG # for add_memory() and friends
>
> Well, it doesn't default to "on for everyone".  It inherits the state of
> DEV_DAX_PMEM so it's only foisted on folks who have already opted in to
> generic pmem support.
>
> >> +int dev_dax_kmem_probe(struct device *dev)
> >> +{
> >> +       struct dev_dax *dev_dax = to_dev_dax(dev);
> >> +       struct resource *res = &dev_dax->region->res;
> >> +       resource_size_t kmem_start;
> >> +       resource_size_t kmem_size;
> >> +       struct resource *new_res;
> >> +       int numa_node;
> >> +       int rc;
> >> +
> >> +       /* Hotplug starting at the beginning of the next block: */
> >> +       kmem_start = ALIGN(res->start, memory_block_size_bytes());
> >> +
> >> +       kmem_size = resource_size(res);
> >> +       /* Adjust the size down to compensate for moving up kmem_start: */
> >> +        kmem_size -= kmem_start - res->start;
> >> +       /* Align the size down to cover only complete blocks: */
> >> +       kmem_size &= ~(memory_block_size_bytes() - 1);
> >> +
> >> +       new_res = devm_request_mem_region(dev, kmem_start, kmem_size,
> >> +                                         dev_name(dev));
> >> +
> >> +       if (!new_res) {
> >> +               printk("could not reserve region %016llx -> %016llx\n",
> >> +                               kmem_start, kmem_start+kmem_size);
> >
> > 1) It'd be nice to have some sort of module tag in the output that
> > ties it to this driver.
>
> Good point.  That should probably be a dev_printk().
>
> > 2) It might be nice to print the range in the same format as %pR,
> > i.e., "[mem %#010x-%#010x]" with the end included (start + size -1 ).
>
> Sure, that sounds like a sane thing to do as well.

Does %pR protect physical address disclosure to non-root by default?
At least the pmem driver is using %pR rather than manually printing
raw physical address values, but you would need to create a local
modified version of the passed in resource.

> >> +               return -EBUSY;
> >> +       }
> >> +
> >> +       /*
> >> +        * Set flags appropriate for System RAM.  Leave ..._BUSY clear
> >> +        * so that add_memory() can add a child resource.
> >> +        */
> >> +       new_res->flags = IORESOURCE_SYSTEM_RAM;
> >
> > IIUC, new_res->flags was set to "IORESOURCE_MEM | ..." in the
> > devm_request_mem_region() path.  I think you should keep at least
> > IORESOURCE_MEM so the iomem_resource tree stays consistent.
> >
> >> +       new_res->name = dev_name(dev);
> >> +
> >> +       numa_node = dev_dax->target_node;
> >> +       if (numa_node < 0) {
> >> +               pr_warn_once("bad numa_node: %d, forcing to 0\n", numa_node);
> >
> > It'd be nice to again have a module tag and an indication of what
> > range is affected, e.g., %pR of new_res.
> >
> > You don't save the new_res pointer anywhere, which I guess you intend
> > for now since there's no remove or anything else to do with this
> > resource?  I thought maybe devm_request_mem_region() would implicitly
> > save it, but it doesn't; it only saves the parent (iomem_resource, the
> > start (kmem_start), and the size (kmem_size)).
>
> Yeah, that's the intention: removal is currently not supported.  I'll
> add a comment to clarify.

I would clarify that *driver* removal is supported because there's no
Linux facility for drivers to fail removal (nothing checks the return
code from ->remove()). Instead the protection is that the resource
must remain pinned forever. In that case devm_request_mem_region() is
the wrong function to use. You want to explicitly use the non-devm
request_mem_region() and purposely leak it to keep the memory reserved
indefinitely.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists