Re: [PATCH v2 3/8] cxl/mem: Register CXL memX devices

[Jonathan Cameron]

On Thu, 11 Feb 2021 12:40:45 -0800
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 2:19 AM Jonathan Cameron
> <Jonathan.Cameron@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 10 Feb 2021 18:17:25 +0000
> > Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >  
> > > On Tue, 9 Feb 2021 16:02:54 -0800
> > > Ben Widawsky <ben.widawsky@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >  
> > > > From: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > >
> > > > Create the /sys/bus/cxl hierarchy to enumerate:
> > > >
> > > > * Memory Devices (per-endpoint control devices)
> > > >
> > > > * Memory Address Space Devices (platform address ranges with
> > > >   interleaving, performance, and persistence attributes)
> > > >
> > > > * Memory Regions (active provisioned memory from an address space device
> > > >   that is in use as System RAM or delegated to libnvdimm as Persistent
> > > >   Memory regions).
> > > >
> > > > For now, only the per-endpoint control devices are registered on the
> > > > 'cxl' bus. However, going forward it will provide a mechanism to
> > > > coordinate cross-device interleave.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Ben Widawsky <ben.widawsky@xxxxxxxxx>  
> > >
> > > One stray header, and a request for a tiny bit of reordering to
> > > make it easier to chase through creation and destruction.
> > >
> > > Either way with the header move to earlier patch I'm fine with this one.
> > >
> > > Reviewed-by: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@xxxxxxxxxx>  
> >
> > Actually thinking more on this, what is the justification for the
> > complexity + overhead of a percpu_refcount vs a refcount  
> 
> A typical refcount does not have the block and drain semantics of a
> percpu_ref. I'm planning to circle back and make this a first class
> facility of the cdev interface borrowing the debugfs approach [1], but
> for now percpu_ref fits the bill locally.
> 
> > I don't think this is a high enough performance path for it to matter.
> > Perhaps I'm missing a usecase where it does?  
> 
> It's less about percpu_ref performance and more about the
> percpu_ref_tryget_live() facility.
> 
> [1]: http://lore.kernel.org/r/CAPcyv4jEYPsyh0bhbtKGRbK3bgp=_+=2rjx4X0gLi5-25VvDyg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Thanks for the reference. Definitely a nasty corner to clean up so I'll
keep an eye open for a new version of that series.

Jonathan