[PATCH updated] libnvdimm/nvdimm/flush: Allow architecture to override the flush barrier

[Aneesh Kumar K.V]

On 6/30/20 12:36 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 10:02 PM Aneesh Kumar K.V
> <aneesh.kumar at linux.ibm.com> wrote:
>>
>> Dan Williams <dan.j.williams at intel.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 1:29 PM Aneesh Kumar K.V
>>> <aneesh.kumar at linux.ibm.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Architectures like ppc64 provide persistent memory specific barriers
>>>> that will ensure that all stores for which the modifications are
>>>> written to persistent storage by preceding dcbfps and dcbstps
>>>> instructions have updated persistent storage before any data
>>>> access or data transfer caused by subsequent instructions is initiated.
>>>> This is in addition to the ordering done by wmb()
>>>>
>>>> Update nvdimm core such that architecture can use barriers other than
>>>> wmb to ensure all previous writes are architecturally visible for
>>>> the platform buffer flush.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar at linux.ibm.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>   drivers/md/dm-writecache.c   | 2 +-
>>>>   drivers/nvdimm/region_devs.c | 8 ++++----
>>>>   include/linux/libnvdimm.h    | 4 ++++
>>>>   3 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/md/dm-writecache.c b/drivers/md/dm-writecache.c
>>>> index 74f3c506f084..8c6b6dce64e2 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/md/dm-writecache.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/md/dm-writecache.c
>>>> @@ -536,7 +536,7 @@ static void ssd_commit_superblock(struct dm_writecache *wc)
>>>>   static void writecache_commit_flushed(struct dm_writecache *wc, bool wait_for_ios)
>>>>   {
>>>>          if (WC_MODE_PMEM(wc))
>>>> -               wmb();
>>>> +               arch_pmem_flush_barrier();
>>>>          else
>>>>                  ssd_commit_flushed(wc, wait_for_ios);
>>>>   }
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/nvdimm/region_devs.c b/drivers/nvdimm/region_devs.c
>>>> index 4502f9c4708d..b308ad09b63d 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/nvdimm/region_devs.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/nvdimm/region_devs.c
>>>> @@ -1206,13 +1206,13 @@ int generic_nvdimm_flush(struct nd_region *nd_region)
>>>>          idx = this_cpu_add_return(flush_idx, hash_32(current->pid + idx, 8));
>>>>
>>>>          /*
>>>> -        * The first wmb() is needed to 'sfence' all previous writes
>>>> -        * such that they are architecturally visible for the platform
>>>> -        * buffer flush.  Note that we've already arranged for pmem
>>>> +        * The first arch_pmem_flush_barrier() is needed to 'sfence' all
>>>> +        * previous writes such that they are architecturally visible for
>>>> +        * the platform buffer flush. Note that we've already arranged for pmem
>>>>           * writes to avoid the cache via memcpy_flushcache().  The final
>>>>           * wmb() ensures ordering for the NVDIMM flush write.
>>>>           */
>>>> -       wmb();
>>>> +       arch_pmem_flush_barrier();
>>>>          for (i = 0; i < nd_region->ndr_mappings; i++)
>>>>                  if (ndrd_get_flush_wpq(ndrd, i, 0))
>>>>                          writeq(1, ndrd_get_flush_wpq(ndrd, i, idx));
>>>> diff --git a/include/linux/libnvdimm.h b/include/linux/libnvdimm.h
>>>> index 18da4059be09..66f6c65bd789 100644
>>>> --- a/include/linux/libnvdimm.h
>>>> +++ b/include/linux/libnvdimm.h
>>>> @@ -286,4 +286,8 @@ static inline void arch_invalidate_pmem(void *addr, size_t size)
>>>>   }
>>>>   #endif
>>>>
>>>> +#ifndef arch_pmem_flush_barrier
>>>> +#define arch_pmem_flush_barrier() wmb()
>>>> +#endif
>>>
>>> I think it is out of place to define this in libnvdimm.h and it is odd
>>> to give it such a long name. The other pmem api helpers like
>>> arch_wb_cache_pmem() and arch_invalidate_pmem() are function calls for
>>> libnvdimm driver operations, this barrier is just an instruction and
>>> is closer to wmb() than the pmem api routine.
>>>
>>> Since it is a store fence for pmem, so let's just call it pmem_wmb()
>>> and define the generic version in include/linux/compiler.h. It should
>>> probably also be documented alongside dma_wmb() in
>>> Documentation/memory-barriers.txt about why code would use it over
>>> wmb(), and why a symmetric pmem_rmb() is not needed.
>>
>> How about the below? I used pmem_barrier() instead of pmem_wmb().
> 
> Why? A barrier() is a bi-directional ordering mechanic for reads and
> writes, and the proposed semantics mechanism only orders writes +
> persistence. Otherwise the default fallback to wmb() on archs that
> don't override it does not make sense.
> 
>> I
>> guess we wanted this to order() any data access not jus the following
>> stores to persistent storage?
> 
> Why?
> 
>> W.r.t why a symmetric pmem_rmb() is not
>> needed I was not sure how to explain that. Are you suggesting to explain
>> why a read/load from persistent storage don't want to wait for
>> pmem_barrier() ?
> 
> I would expect that the explanation is that a typical rmb() is
> sufficient and that there is nothing pmem specific semantic for read
> ordering for pmem vs normal read-barrier semantics.
> 
>>
>> modified   Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
>> @@ -1935,6 +1935,16 @@ There are some more advanced barrier functions:
>>        relaxed I/O accessors and the Documentation/DMA-API.txt file for more
>>        information on consistent memory.
>>
>> + (*) pmem_barrier();
>> +
>> +     These are for use with persistent memory to esure the ordering of stores
>> +     to persistent memory region.
> 
> If it was just ordering I would expect a typical wmb() to be
> sufficient, why is the pmem-specific instruction needed? I thought it
> was handshaking with hardware to ensure acceptance into a persistence
> domain *in addition* to ordering the stores.
> 
>> +     For example, after a non temporal write to persistent storage we use pmem_barrier()
>> +     to ensures that stores have updated the persistent storage before
>> +     any data access or data transfer caused by subsequent instructions is initiated.
> 
> Isn't the ordering aspect is irrelevant relative to traditional wmb()?
> For example if you used the wrong sync instruction the store ordering
> will still be correct it would just not persist at the same time as
> barrier completes. Or am I misunderstanding how these new instructions
> are distinct?
> 

That is correct.

-aneesh