[PATCH] [RFC] pmem: add pmem support codes on ARM64
Mark Rutland
mark.rutland at arm.com
Tue Jul 5 03:32:22 PDT 2016
Hi,
On Tue, Jul 05, 2016 at 04:31:17PM +0900, Kwangwoo Lee wrote:
> The PMEM driver on top of NVDIMM(Non-Volatile DIMM) has already been
> supported on X86_64 and there exist several ARM64 platforms which support
> DIMM type memories.
>
> This patch set enables the PMEM driver on ARM64 (AArch64) architecture
> on top of NVDIMM. While developing this patch set, QEMU 2.6.50 with NVDIMM
> emulation for ARM64 has also been developed and tested on it.
Just to check, which platforms is this intended to support?
Architectural support for persistent memory (the addition of the
Point-of-Persistency, along with the new DC CVAP instruction) came in
ARMv8.2, and prior to this I'm not entirely sure how things are
expected/likely to work (i.e. I'm not sure whether maintenance to the
PoC is sufficient).
>
> $ dmesg
> [ 0.000000] Booting Linux on physical CPU 0x0
> [ 0.000000] Linux version 4.6.0-rc2kw-dirty (kwangwoo at VBox15) (gcc version 5.2.1 20151010 (Ubuntu 5.2.1-22ubuntu1) ) #10 SMP Tue Jul 5 11:30:33 KST 2016
> [ 0.000000] Boot CPU: AArch64 Processor [411fd070]
> [ 0.000000] efi: Getting EFI parameters from FDT:
> [ 0.000000] EFI v2.60 by EDK II
> [ 0.000000] efi: SMBIOS 3.0=0x58710000 ACPI 2.0=0x589b0000
> [ 0.000000] ACPI: Early table checksum verification disabled
> [ 0.000000] ACPI: RSDP 0x00000000589B0000 000024 (v02 BOCHS )
> [ 0.000000] ACPI: XSDT 0x00000000589A0000 00005C (v01 BOCHS BXPCFACP 00000001 01000013)
> [ 0.000000] ACPI: FACP 0x0000000058620000 00010C (v05 BOCHS BXPCFACP 00000001 BXPC 00000001)
> [ 0.000000] ACPI: DSDT 0x0000000058630000 00108F (v02 BOCHS BXPCDSDT 00000001 BXPC 00000001)
> [ 0.000000] ACPI: APIC 0x0000000058610000 0000A8 (v03 BOCHS BXPCAPIC 00000001 BXPC 00000001)
> [ 0.000000] ACPI: GTDT 0x0000000058600000 000060 (v02 BOCHS BXPCGTDT 00000001 BXPC 00000001)
> [ 0.000000] ACPI: MCFG 0x00000000585F0000 00003C (v01 BOCHS BXPCMCFG 00000001 BXPC 00000001)
> [ 0.000000] ACPI: SPCR 0x00000000585E0000 000050 (v02 BOCHS BXPCSPCR 00000001 BXPC 00000001)
> [ 0.000000] ACPI: NFIT 0x00000000585D0000 0000E0 (v01 BOCHS BXPCNFIT 00000001 BXPC 00000001)
> [ 0.000000] ACPI: SSDT 0x00000000585C0000 000131 (v01 BOCHS NVDIMM 00000001 BXPC 00000001)
> ...
> [ 5.386743] pmem0: detected capacity change from 0 to 1073741824
> ...
> [ 531.952466] EXT4-fs (pmem0): DAX enabled. Warning: EXPERIMENTAL, use at your own risk
> [ 531.961073] EXT4-fs (pmem0): mounted filesystem with ordered data mode. Opts: dax
>
> $ mount
> rootfs on / type rootfs (rw,size=206300k,nr_inodes=51575)
> ...
> /dev/pmem0 on /mnt/mem type ext4 (rw,relatime,dax,data=ordered)
>
> $ df -h
> Filesystem Size Used Available Use% Mounted on
> ...
> /dev/pmem0 975.9M 1.3M 907.4M 0% /mnt/mem
>
> Signed-off-by: Kwangwoo Lee <kwangwoo.lee at sk.com>
> ---
> arch/arm64/Kconfig | 2 +
> arch/arm64/include/asm/cacheflush.h | 2 +
> arch/arm64/include/asm/pmem.h | 149 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 3 files changed, 153 insertions(+)
> create mode 100644 arch/arm64/include/asm/pmem.h
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/Kconfig b/arch/arm64/Kconfig
> index 4f43622..ee1d679 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/Kconfig
> +++ b/arch/arm64/Kconfig
> @@ -15,6 +15,8 @@ config ARM64
> select ARCH_WANT_COMPAT_IPC_PARSE_VERSION
> select ARCH_WANT_FRAME_POINTERS
> select ARCH_HAS_UBSAN_SANITIZE_ALL
> + select ARCH_HAS_PMEM_API
> + select ARCH_HAS_MMIO_FLUSH
> select ARM_AMBA
> select ARM_ARCH_TIMER
> select ARM_GIC
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/cacheflush.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/cacheflush.h
> index c64268d..113bd1f 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/cacheflush.h
> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/cacheflush.h
> @@ -133,6 +133,8 @@ static inline void __flush_icache_all(void)
> */
> #define flush_icache_page(vma,page) do { } while (0)
>
> +#define mmio_flush_range(addr, size) __flush_dcache_area(addr, size)
What exactly is mmio_flush_range() intended to do? Does it need to
ensure that data is written back to memory (but not necessarily
persistently)?
What mappings is this used for?
> +
> /*
> * Not required on AArch64 (PIPT or VIPT non-aliasing D-cache).
> */
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/pmem.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/pmem.h
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000..4bdf015
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/pmem.h
> @@ -0,0 +1,149 @@
> +/*
> + * Based on arch/x86/include/asm/pmem.h
> + *
> + * Copyright(c) 2016 SK hynix Inc. Kwangwoo Lee <kwangwoo.lee at sk.com>
> + *
> + * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
> + * it under the terms of version 2 of the GNU General Public License as
> + * published by the Free Software Foundation.
> + *
> + * This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but
> + * WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
> + * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU
> + * General Public License for more details.
> + */
> +#ifndef __ASM_ARM64_PMEM_H__
> +#define __ASM_ARM64_PMEM_H__
Nit: make this __ASM_PMEM_H, to match the style of other arm64 headers
> +
> +#include <linux/uaccess.h>
> +#include <asm/cacheflush.h>
> +
> +#ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_PMEM_API
Can we not put the headers under this guard?
> +/**
> + * arch_memcpy_to_pmem - copy data to persistent memory
> + * @dst: destination buffer for the copy
> + * @src: source buffer for the copy
> + * @n: length of the copy in bytes
> + *
> + * Copy data to persistent memory media via non-temporal stores so that
> + * a subsequent arch_wmb_pmem() can flush cpu and memory controller
> + * write buffers to guarantee durability.
> + */
This comment appears to be a direct copy of the x86 comment, and I don't
think it's correct. I don't think non-temporal stores come into this at
all for arm64.
> +static inline void arch_memcpy_to_pmem(void __pmem *dst, const void *src,
> + size_t n)
> +{
> + int unwritten;
> +
> + /*
> + * We are copying between two kernel buffers, if
> + * __copy_from_user_inatomic_nocache() returns an error (page
> + * fault) we would have already reported a general protection fault
> + * before the WARN+BUG.
> + */
> + unwritten = __copy_from_user_inatomic_nocache((void __force *) dst,
> + (void __user *) src, n);
We didn't define ARCH_HAS_NOCACHE_UACCESS, so this is just
__copy_from_user_inatomic, no?
What is the expectation regarding how persistent memory is mapped?
I'm not sure I follow why we use __copy_from_user_inatomic here, if the
src is a kernel buffer. Why do we expect faults on kernel addresses?
Do callers set up KERNEL_DS appropriately before calling
__copy_from_user?
> + if (WARN(unwritten, "%s: fault copying %p <- %p unwritten: %d\n",
> + __func__, dst, src, unwritten))
> + BUG();
> +}
> +
> +static inline int arch_memcpy_from_pmem(void *dst, const void __pmem *src,
> + size_t n)
> +{
> + memcpy(dst, (void __force *) src, n);
> + return 0;
> +}
We don't need to do any special checks here?
The asymmetry doesn't seem right to me. What am I missing?
> +/**
> + * arch_wmb_pmem - synchronize writes to persistent memory
> + *
> + * After a series of arch_memcpy_to_pmem() operations this drains data
> + * from cpu write buffers and any platform (memory controller) buffers
> + * to ensure that written data is durable on persistent memory media.
> + */
> +static inline void arch_wmb_pmem(void)
> +{
> + /*
> + * PCOMMIT instruction only exists on x86. So pcommit_sfence() has been
> + * removed after wmb(). Note, that we've already arranged for pmem
> + * writes to avoid the cache via arch_memcpy_to_pmem().
> + */
> + wmb();
> +}
In ARMv8.2, I believe that a DSB following a series of DC CVAP
instructions is sufficient to ensure that data has made it to the point
of persistence.
Prior to that, I'm not sure whether a DSB following a series of DC CVAC
will be sufficient on all platforms.
> +
> +/**
> + * arch_wb_cache_pmem - write back a cache range
> + * @vaddr: virtual start address
> + * @size: number of bytes to write back
> + *
> + * Write back a cache range. This function requires explicit ordering with an
> + * arch_wmb_pmem() call.
> + */
> +static inline void arch_wb_cache_pmem(void __pmem *addr, size_t size)
> +{
> + __clean_dcache_area_pou(addr, size);
> +}
Below (per arch_clear_pmem), it looks like this is required to force
data to be written back to the Point-of-Persistency.
Cleaning to the PoU is not appropriate, as that only guarantees
visibility to instruction fetches, and does not guarantee that data was
written back to memory or to the Point-of-Persistency.
I believe that with ARMv8.2 this needs to consist of DC CVAP (i.e. we
need a __clean_dache_area_pop).
> +/*
> + * copy_from_iter_nocache() only uses non-temporal stores for iovec iterators,
> + * so for other types (bvec & kvec) we must do a cache write-back.
> + */
> +static inline bool __iter_needs_pmem_wb(struct iov_iter *i)
> +{
> + return iter_is_iovec(i) == false;
> +}
As previously, the copy+pasted x86 comment is meaningless here. I don't
understand what this is intended to achieve.
> +/**
> + * arch_copy_from_iter_pmem - copy data from an iterator to PMEM
> + * @addr: PMEM destination address
> + * @bytes: number of bytes to copy
> + * @i: iterator with source data
> + *
> + * Copy data from the iterator 'i' to the PMEM buffer starting at 'addr'.
> + * This function requires explicit ordering with an arch_wmb_pmem() call.
> + */
> +static inline size_t arch_copy_from_iter_pmem(void __pmem *addr, size_t bytes,
> + struct iov_iter *i)
> +{
> + void *vaddr = (void __force *)addr;
> + size_t len;
> +
> + /* TODO: skip the write-back by always using non-temporal stores */
Copy+pasted comment again. This is not relevant for arm64.
> + len = copy_from_iter_nocache(vaddr, bytes, i);
> +
> + if (__iter_needs_pmem_wb(i))
> + arch_wb_cache_pmem(addr, bytes);
> +
> + return len;
> +}
> +
> +/**
> + * arch_clear_pmem - zero a PMEM memory range
> + * @addr: virtual start address
> + * @size: number of bytes to zero
> + *
> + * Write zeros into the memory range starting at 'addr' for 'size' bytes.
> + * This function requires explicit ordering with an arch_wmb_pmem() call.
> + */
> +static inline void arch_clear_pmem(void __pmem *addr, size_t size)
> +{
> + void *vaddr = (void __force *)addr;
> +
> + memset(vaddr, 0, size);
> + arch_wb_cache_pmem(addr, size);
> +}
> +
> +static inline void arch_invalidate_pmem(void __pmem *addr, size_t size)
> +{
> + /* barrier before clean and invalidate */
> + mb();
That comment is not very helpful.
What exactly are we trying to order before the __flush_dcache_area()
call?
> +
> + __flush_dcache_area(addr, size);
> +}
> +
> +static inline bool __arch_has_wmb_pmem(void)
> +{
> + return true;
> +}
I'm not sure that we should do this in the absence of the ARMv8.2
extensions for persistent memory, as I don't know whether we can
guarantee durability.
Thanks,
Mark.
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list