Re: [PATCH v4 21/28] cxl/extent: Process DCD events and realize region extents

Jonathan Cameron
2024-10-22T17:01:27Z

On Mon, 21 Oct 2024 13:45:57 -0500
Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@intel.com> wrote:

> Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> > On Thu, 17 Oct 2024 16:39:57 -0500
> > Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 07 Oct 2024 18:16:27 -0500
> > > > ira.weiny@intel.com wrote:
> > > >
>
> [snip]
>
> > > > > Simplify extent tracking with the following restrictions.
> > > > >
> > > > > 1) Flag for removal any extent which overlaps a requested
> > > > > release range.
> > > > > 2) Refuse the offer of extents which overlap already accepted
> > > > > memory ranges.
> > > > > 3) Accept again a range which has already been accepted by the
> > > > > host. Eating duplicates serves three purposes. First, this
> > > > > simplifies the code if the device should get out of sync with
> > > > > the host.
> > > >
> > > > Maybe scream about this a little. AFAIK that happening is a device
> > > > bug.
> > >
> > > Agreed but because of the 2nd purpose this is difficult to scream about because
> > > this situation can come up in normal operation. Here is the scenario:
> > >
> > > 1) Device has 2 DCD partitions active, A and B
> > > 2) Host crashes
> > > 3) Region X is created on A
> > > 4) Region Y is created on B
> > > 5) Region Y scans for extents
> > > 6) Region X surfaces a new extent while Y is scanning
> > > 7) Gen number changes due to new extent in X
> > > 8) Region Y rescans for existing extents and sees duplicates.
> > >
> > > These duplicates need to be ignored without signaling an error.
> > Hmm. If we can know that path is the trigger (should be able to
> > as it's a scan after a gen number change), can we just muffle the
> > screams on that path? (Halloween is close, the analogies will get
> > ever worse :)
>
> Ok yea since this would be a device error we should do something here. But the
> code is going to be somewhat convoluted to print an error whenever this
> happens.
>
> What if we make this a warning and change the rescan debug message to a warning
> as well? This would allow enough bread crumbs to determine if a device is
> failing without a lot of extra code to alter print messages on the fly?

Sounds ok to me.

Jonathan

>
> Ira
>