Re: [Linux-nvdimm] another pmem variant

[Dan Williams]

On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 9:44 AM, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 09:33:52AM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
>> This is mostly ok and does not collide too much with the upcoming ACPI
>> mechanism for this stuff.  I do worry that the new
>> "memmap=nn[KMG]!ss[KMG]" kernel command line option will only be
>> relevant for at most one kernel cycle given the imminent publication
>> of the spec that unblocks our release.
>
> I don't think we can just get rid of it as legacy systems won't be
> upgraded to the new discovery mechanism.  Or do you mean you plan to
> introduce a better override on the command line?  In that case speak
> up now!

The kernel command line would simply be the standard/existing memmap=
to reserve a memory range.  Then, when the platform device loads, it
does a request_firmware() to inject a binary table that further carves
memory into ranges to which the pmem driver attaches.  No need for the
legacy system BIOS to be upgraded to the "new way".

>> Our planned solution to the "legacy pmem" problem is to have a
>> userspace utility craft a list of address ranges in the form that ACPI
>> expects and attach that to a platform device (one time setup).  It
>> only requires that the memory be marked reserved, not necessarily
>> marked type-12.
>
> I can't see any benefit of that over just doign the right thing in
> kernel space.

It does do the right thing in kernel space.  The userspace utility
creates the binary table (once) that can be compiled into the platform
device driver or auto-loaded by an initrd.  The problem with a new
memmap= is that it is too coarse.  For example you can't do things
like specify a pmem range per-NUMA node.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/