Re: [Qemu-devel] KVM "fake DAX" flushing interface - discussion

[Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>]

On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 8:53 AM, David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 24.11.2017 13:40, Pankaj Gupta wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> Thank you all for all the useful suggestions.
>> I want to summarize the discussions so far in the
>> thread. Please see below:
>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> We can go with the "best" interface for what
>>>>>> could be a relatively slow flush (fsync on a
>>>>>> file on ssd/disk on the host), which requires
>>>>>> that the flushing task wait on completion
>>>>>> asynchronously.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd like to clarify the interface of "wait on completion
>>>>> asynchronously" and KVM async page fault a bit more.
>>>>>
>>>>> Current design of async-page-fault only works on RAM rather
>>>>> than MMIO, i.e, if the page fault caused by accessing the
>>>>> device memory of a emulated device, it needs to go to
>>>>> userspace (QEMU) which emulates the operation in vCPU's
>>>>> thread.
>>>>>
>>>>> As i mentioned before the memory region used for vNVDIMM
>>>>> flush interface should be MMIO and consider its support
>>>>> on other hypervisors, so we do better push this async
>>>>> mechanism into the flush interface design itself rather
>>>>> than depends on kvm async-page-fault.
>>>>
>>>> I would expect this interface to be virtio-ring based to queue flush
>>>> requests asynchronously to the host.
>>>
>>> Could we reuse the virtio-blk device, only with a different device id?
>>
>> As per previous discussions, there were suggestions on main two parts of the project:
>>
>> 1] Expose vNVDIMM memory range to KVM guest.
>>
>>    - Add flag in ACPI NFIT table for this new memory type. Do we need NVDIMM spec
>>      changes for this?
>>
>>    - Guest should be able to add this memory in system memory map. Name of the added memory in
>>      '/proc/iomem' should be different(shared memory?) than persistent memory as it
>>      does not satisfy exact definition of persistent memory (requires an explicit flush).
>>
>>    - Guest should not allow 'device-dax' and other fancy features which are not
>>      virtualization friendly.
>>
>> 2] Flushing interface to persist guest changes.
>>
>>    - As per suggestion by ChristophH (CCed), we explored options other then virtio like MMIO etc.
>>      Looks like most of these options are not use-case friendly. As we want to do fsync on a
>>      file on ssd/disk on the host and we cannot make guest vCPU's wait for that time.
>>
>>    - Though adding new driver(virtio-pmem) looks like repeated work and not needed so we can
>>      go with the existing pmem driver and add flush specific to this new memory type.
>
> I'd like to emphasize again, that I would prefer a virtio-pmem only
> solution.
>
> There are architectures out there (e.g. s390x) that don't support
> NVDIMMs - there is no HW interface to expose any such stuff.
>
> However, with virtio-pmem, we could make it work also on architectures
> not having ACPI and friends.

ACPI and virtio-only can share the same pmem driver. There are two
parts to this, region discovery and setting up the pmem driver. For
discovery you can either have an NFIT-bus defined range, or a new
virtio-pmem-bus define it. As far as the pmem driver itself it's
agnostic to how the range is discovered.

In other words, pmem consumes 'regions' from libnvdimm and the a bus
provider like nfit, e820, or a new virtio-mechansim produce 'regions'.