On Wed, Jun 06, 2018 at 10:50:51AM -0600, Ross Zwisler wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 05, 2018 at 03:21:30PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 3:07 PM, Ross Zwisler
> > <ross.zwis...@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jun 05, 2018 at 09:37:25PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > >> On Tue, Jun 05, 2018 at 11:15:00AM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> > >> > On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 9:42 AM, Ross Zwisler
> > >> > <ross.zwis...@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > >> > > On Tue, Jun 05, 2018 at 06:25:27PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > >> > >> On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 10:32:02AM -0600, Ross Zwisler wrote:
> > >> > >> > Add a machine command line option to allow the user to control
> > >> > >> > the Platform
> > >> > >> > Capabilities Structure in the virtualized NFIT. This Platform
> > >> > >> > Capabilities
> > >> > >> > Structure was added in ACPI 6.2 Errata A.
> > >> > >> >
> > >> > >> > Signed-off-by: Ross Zwisler <ross.zwis...@linux.intel.com>
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> I tried playing with it and encoding the capabilities is
> > >> > >> quite awkward.
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> Can we add bits for specific capabilities instead of nvdimm-cap?
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> How about:
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> "cpu-flush-on-power-loss-cap"
> > >> > >> "memory-flush-on-power-loss-cap"
> > >> > >> "byte-addressable-mirroring-cap"
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Hmmm...I don't like that as much because:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > a) It's very verbose. Looking at my current qemu command line few
> > >> > > other
> > >> > > options require that many characters, and you'd commonly be
> > >> > > defining more
> > >> > > than one of these for a given VM.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > b) It means that the QEMU will need to be updated if/when new flags
> > >> > > are added,
> > >> > > because we'll have to have new options for each flag. The current
> > >> > > implementation is more future-proof because you can specify any
> > >> > > flags
> > >> > > value you want.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > However, if you feel strongly about this, I'll make the change.
> > >> >
> > >> > Straw-man: Could we do something similar with what we are doing in
> > >> > ndctl?
> > >> >
> > >> > enum ndctl_persistence_domain {
> > >> > PERSISTENCE_NONE = 0,
> > >> > PERSISTENCE_MEM_CTRL = 10,
> > >> > PERSISTENCE_CPU_CACHE = 20,
> > >> > PERSISTENCE_UNKNOWN = INT_MAX,
> > >> > };
> > >> >
> > >> > ...and have the command line take a number where "10" and "20" are
> > >> > supported today, but allows us to adapt to new persistence domains in
> > >> > the future.
> > >>
> > >> I'm fine with that except can we have symbolic names instead of numbers
> > >> on command line?
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> MST
> > >
> > > Okay, we can move to the symbolic names. Do you want them to be that
> > > long, or
> > > would:
> > >
> > > nvdimm-cap-cpu
> > > nvdimm-cap-mem-ctrl
> > > nvdimm-cap-mirroring
> >
> > Wait, why is mirroring part of this?
> >
> > I was thinking this option would be:
> >
> > --persistence-domain={cpu,mem-ctrl}
> >
> > ...and try not to let ACPI specifics leak into the qemu command line
> > interface. For example PowerPC qemu could have a persistence domain
> > communicated via Open Firmware or some other mechanism.
>
> Sure, this seems fine, though we may want to throw an "nvdimm" in the name
> somewhere so it's clear what the option affects.
>
> nvdimm-persistence={cpu,mem-ctrl} maybe?
>
> Michael, does this work for you?
Sounds good to me.
