Message-ID: <CAPcyv4iTJcjbfeBHbOJEai4gZyD7m79AmqQrtdkEtEUOvXaYAA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 29 Jun 2020 16:37:23 -0700
From:   Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
To:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Cc:     "linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org" <linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org>,
        Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>,
        Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@...el.com>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
        Vishal Verma <vishal.l.verma@...el.com>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...el.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, Stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
        ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/12] ACPI/NVDIMM: Runtime Firmware Activation

On Sun, Jun 28, 2020 at 10:23 AM Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 8:43 PM Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 7:22 AM Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@...nel.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 2:06 AM Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Quoting the documentation:
> > > >
> > > >     Some persistent memory devices run a firmware locally on the device /
> > > >     "DIMM" to perform tasks like media management, capacity provisioning,
> > > >     and health monitoring. The process of updating that firmware typically
> > > >     involves a reboot because it has implications for in-flight memory
> > > >     transactions. However, reboots are disruptive and at least the Intel
> > > >     persistent memory platform implementation, described by the Intel ACPI
> > > >     DSM specification [1], has added support for activating firmware at
> > > >     runtime.
> > > >
> > > >     [1]: https://docs.pmem.io/persistent-memory/
> > > >
> > > > The approach taken is to abstract the Intel platform specific mechanism
> > > > behind a libnvdimm-generic sysfs interface. The interface could support
> > > > runtime-firmware-activation on another architecture without need to
> > > > change userspace tooling.
> > > >
> > > > The ACPI NFIT implementation involves a set of device-specific-methods
> > > > (DSMs) to 'arm' individual devices for activation and bus-level
> > > > 'trigger' method to execute the activation. Informational / enumeration
> > > > methods are also provided at the bus and device level.
> > > >
> > > > One complicating aspect of the memory device firmware activation is that
> > > > the memory controller may need to be quiesced, no memory cycles, during
> > > > the activation. While the platform has mechanisms to support holding off
> > > > in-flight DMA during the activation, the device response to that delay
> > > > is potentially undefined. The platform may reject a runtime firmware
> > > > update if, for example a PCI-E device does not support its completion
> > > > timeout value being increased to meet the activation time. Outside of
> > > > device timeouts the quiesce period may also violate application
> > > > timeouts.
> > > >
> > > > Given the above device and application timeout considerations the
> > > > implementation defaults to hooking into the suspend path to trigger the
> > > > activation, i.e. that a suspend-resume cycle (at least up to the syscore
> > > > suspend point) is required.
> > >
> > > Well, that doesn't work if the suspend method for the system is set to
> > > suspend-to-idle (for example, via /sys/power/mem_sleep), because the
> > > syscore callbacks are not invoked in that case.
> > >
> > > Also you probably don't need the device power state toggling that
> > > happens during regular suspend/resume (you may not want it even for
> > > some devices).
> > >
> > > The hibernation freeze/thaw may be a better match and there is some
> > > test support in there already that may be kind of co-opted for your
> > > use case.
> >
> > Hmm, yes I guess freeze should be sufficient to quiesce most
> > device-DMA in the general case as applications will stop sending
> > requests.
>
> It is expected to be sufficient to quiesce all of them.
>
> If that is not the case, the integrity of the hibernation image cannot
> be guaranteed on the system in question.
>

Ah, indeed, I was overlooking that property.

> > I do expect some RDMA devices will happily keep on
> > transmitting, but that likely will need explicit mitigation. It also
> > appears the suspend callback for at least one RDMA device
> > mlx5_suspend() is rather violent as it appears to fully teardown the
> > device context, not just suspend operations.
> >
> > To be clear, what debug interface were you thinking I could glom onto
> > to just trigger firmware-activate at the end of the freeze phase?
>
> Functionally, the same as for suspend, but using the hibernation
> interface, so "echo platform > /sys/power/pm_test" followed by "echo
> disk > /sys/power/state".
>
> But it might be cleaner to introduce a special "hibernation mode", ie.
> is one more item in /sys/power/disk, that will trigger what you need
> (in analogy with "test_resume").

I'll move the trigger to be after process freeze, but I'll keep it
tied to suspend-debug vs hibernate-debug. It appears the hibernate
debug path still goes through the exercise of allocating memory for
the hibernation image which is unnecessary if the goal is just to
'freeze', 'activate', and 'thaw'.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists