Re: [Linux-nvdimm] [PATCH v2 11/20] libnd, nd_pmem: add libnd support to the pmem driver

[Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>]

On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 5:17 PM, Phil Pokorny
<ppokorny@penguincomputing.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 3:58 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 3:21 PM, Phil Pokorny
>> <ppokorny@penguincomputing.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 2:04 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 11:25 AM, Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> wrote:
>>>>> +config ND_E820
>>>>> +       tristate "E820: Support the E820-type-12 PMEM convention"
>>>>> +       depends on X86_PMEM_LEGACY
>>>>> +       default m if X86_PMEM_LEGACY
>>>>> +       select LIBND
>>>>> +       help
>>>>> +         Prior to ACPI 6 some platforms advertised peristent memory
>>>>> +         via type-12 e820 memory ranges.  Create a libnd bus and
>>>>> +         attach an instance of the pmem driver to these ranges.
>>>>> +
>>>>
>>>> How about something like:
>>>>
>>>> "This driver allows libnd to work with legacy, pre-ACPI 6 NVDIMMs.
>>>> This enables such devices to be exposed as block devices using PMEM.
>>>>
>>>> The legacy NVDIMM interface is problematic.  This driver will not work
>>>> if you boot using UEFI, and some NVDIMMs and motherboards that work
>>>> with this driver may require proprietary code in order to work
>>>> reliably."
>>>
>>> Perhaps not "problematic" but "requires a BIOS in Legacy mode"
>>>
>>> It might also mention that if you use the kernel command line
>>> memmap=nn!ss syntax it adds
>>> a type 12 region to the e820 map and so you would want this support.
>>>
>>> If you have a motherboard with UEFI support for NVDIMM's that would be
>>> the recommended
>>> configuration.
>>
>> This is such a mess that I think this driver should maybe flat-out
>> refuse to load in this type of configuration without some scary module
>> option.  I have some NVDIMMs that report as type 12 but need two extra
>> out-of-tree drivers to work safely.  First, they need i2c_imc or the
>> equivalent (I'll try to resubmit that soon).  Second, they need secret
>> magic NDAed register poking.  The latter is very problematic.
>
> My current experience is that things may be changing to something of a de-facto
> standard in the area of register poking.  In which case, we should be
> able to ask
> the de-facto vendor standard to be released under a non-NDA license so we can
> write a proper user-space library for it.  Or at worst, get a
> proprietary source utility
> that can do the poking.
>
> The vendor isn't going to sell anything if they don't provide the
> tools their resellers
> and customers need.
>

I suspect that the vendor will soon be done selling this particular
part as they move toward something more standard.  Dunno.

>
>> At the very least, I think we should discourage people who don't
>> really know what they're doing from using this driver without care.
>
> What would be the fun in that...
>
> But seriously, speaking as Penguin Computing and a retailer of
> hardware, I'd rather
> not have the kernel telling my customers what's safe and what isn't
> when it's a matter
> of opinion.  We provide a solution with support and having to tell my
> customers: "you
> need to load the module with the 'THIS_IS_UNSAFE' argument set to 3"
> isn't productive.

It could be that you load with i_promise_i_have_an_nvdimm_driver_too=1
or, better yet, if loaded without the magic option but with the magic
driver it figures it out and initializes anyway.

>
> Another intersesting possibility of the memmap= directive to declare a
> type 12 region of
> of memory is that you can test the driver (without the persistance) on
> any arbitrary region
> of memory in a machine.  Other comments on this patch set talked about
> having to put
> virtual test hardware in qemu or kvm.  Aside from the register poking,
> just adding
> memmap=xx!yy to the command line gives you something pmem can attach to and
> you can use to test with.  I suppose you could even simulate
> persistance by saving off
> the contents and restoring it on a controlled reboot.

That's definitely useful.

Anyway, I don't object strongly to the driver as is.  Anyone with a
legacy NVDIMM is already dependent on all kinds of things going right
(correct power supply, ADR, all pins wired correctly, correct BIOS
version, no EFI, lack of pcommit not being a problem, etc).

--Andy