[PATCH 0/8] ARM: mvebu: Add support for RAID6 PQ offloading
dan.j.williams at intel.com
Wed May 13 09:00:46 PDT 2015
On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 2:17 AM, Maxime Ripard
<maxime.ripard at free-electrons.com> wrote:
> Hi Dan,
> On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 09:05:41AM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
>> On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 8:37 AM, Maxime Ripard
>> <maxime.ripard at free-electrons.com> wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> > This serie refactors the mv_xor in order to support the latest Armada
>> > 38x features, including the PQ support in order to offload the RAID6
>> > PQ operations.
>> > Not all the PQ operations are supported by the XOR engine, so we had
>> > to introduce new async_tx flags in the process to identify
>> > un-supported operations.
>> > Please note that this is currently not usable because of a possible
>> > regression in the RAID stack in 4.1 that is being discussed at the
>> > moment here: https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/5/7/527
>> This is problematic as async_tx is a wart on the dmaengine subsystem
>> and needs to be deprecated, I just have yet to find the time to do
>> that work. It turns out it was a mistake to hide the device details
>> from md, it should be explicitly managing the dma channels, not
>> relying on a abstraction api. The async_tx api usage of the
>> dma-mapping api is broken in that it relies on overlapping mappings of
>> the same address. This happens to work on x86, but on arm it needs
>> explicit non-overlapping mappings. I started the work to reference
>> count dma-mappings in 3.13, and we need to teach md to use
>> dmaengine_unmap_data explicitly. Yielding dma channel management to
>> md also results in a more efficient implementation as we can dma_map()
>> the stripe cache once rather than per-io. The "async_tx_ack()"
>> disaster can also go away when md is explicitly handling channel
> Even though I'd be very much in favor of deprecating / removing
> async_tx, is it something likely to happen soon?
Not unless someone else takes it on, I'm actively asking for help.
> I remember discussing this with Vinod at Plumbers back in October, but
> haven't seen anything since then.
Right, "help!" :)
> If not, I think that we shouldn't really hold back patches to
> async_tx, even though we know than in a year from now, it's going to
> be gone.
We definitely should block new usages, because they make a bad
situation worse. Russell already warned that the dma_mapping api
abuse could lead to data corruption on ARM (speculative pre-fetching).
We need to mark ASYNC_TX_DMA as "depends on !ARM" or even "depends on
BROKEN" until we can get this resolved.
More information about the linux-arm-kernel