Date:   Wed, 12 Jan 2022 09:12:42 -0400
From:   Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>
To:     "lizhijian@fujitsu.com" <lizhijian@fujitsu.com>
Cc:     "linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org" <linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org>,
        "zyjzyj2000@gmail.com" <zyjzyj2000@gmail.com>,
        "aharonl@nvidia.com" <aharonl@nvidia.com>,
        "leon@kernel.org" <leon@kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "mbloch@nvidia.com" <mbloch@nvidia.com>,
        "liangwenpeng@huawei.com" <liangwenpeng@huawei.com>,
        "yangx.jy@fujitsu.com" <yangx.jy@fujitsu.com>,
        "rpearsonhpe@gmail.com" <rpearsonhpe@gmail.com>,
        "y-goto@fujitsu.com" <y-goto@fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH rdma-next 08/10] RDMA/rxe: Implement flush execution
 in responder side
Message-ID: <20220112131242.GL6467@ziepe.ca>
References: <20211228080717.10666-1-lizhijian@cn.fujitsu.com>
 <20211228080717.10666-9-lizhijian@cn.fujitsu.com>
 <20220106002804.GS6467@ziepe.ca>
 <347eb51d-6b0c-75fb-e27f-6bf4969125fe@fujitsu.com>
 <20220106173346.GU6467@ziepe.ca>
 <daa77a81-a518-0ba1-650c-faaaef33c1ea@fujitsu.com>
 <20220110143419.GF6467@ziepe.ca>
 <56234596-cb7d-bdb2-fcfd-f1fe0f25c3e3@fujitsu.com>
 <20220111204826.GK6467@ziepe.ca>
 <f980d32d-85b7-87b5-750f-aaa728d811c8@fujitsu.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <f980d32d-85b7-87b5-750f-aaa728d811c8@fujitsu.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 09:50:38AM +0000, lizhijian@fujitsu.com wrote:
> 
> 
> On 12/01/2022 04:48, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 11, 2022 at 05:34:36AM +0000, lizhijian@fujitsu.com wrote:
> >
> >> Yes, that's true. that's because only pmem has ability to persist data.
> >> So do you mean we don't need to prevent user to create/register a persistent
> >> access flag to a non-pmem MR? it would be a bit confusing if so.
> > Since these extensions seem to have a mode that is unrelated to
> > persistent memory,
> I can only agree with part of them, since the extensions also say that:
> 
> oA19-1: Responder shall successfully respond on FLUSH operation only
> after providing the placement guarantees, as specified in the packet, of
> preceding memory updates (for example: RDMA WRITE, Atomics and
> ATOMIC WRITE) towards the memory region.
> 
> it mentions *shall successfully respond on FLUSH operation only
> after providing the placement guarantees*. If users request a
> persistent placement to a non-pmem MR without errors,  from view
> of the users, they will think of their request had been *successfully responded*
> that doesn't reflect the true(data was persisted).

The "placement guarentees" should obviously be variable depending on
the type of memory being targeted.

> Further more, If we have a checking during the new MR creating/registering,
> user who registers this MR can know if the target MR supports persistent access flag.
> Then they can tell this information to the request side so that request side can
> request a valid placement type later. that is similar behavior with current librpma.

Then you can't use ATOMIC_WRITE with non-nvdimm memory, which is
nonsense

Jason