Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Thu, 8 Sep 2022 14:13:19 +0100
From:   Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>
To:     Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
CC:     Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>, <x86@kernel.org>,
        <nvdimm@lists.linux.dev>, <linux-cxl@vger.kernel.org>,
        <peterz@infradead.org>, <bp@alien8.de>, <dave.jiang@intel.com>,
        <vishal.l.verma@intel.com>, <ira.weiny@intel.com>,
        <a.manzanares@samsung.com>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next] memregion: Add arch_flush_memregion() interface
Message-ID: <20220908141319.00000f01@huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <631940536d040_2736529437@dwillia2-xfh.jf.intel.com.notmuch>
References: <20220829212918.4039240-1-dave@stgolabs.net>
        <20220907153016.f7cd4f42a337fedae8319f28@linux-foundation.org>
        <631940536d040_2736529437@dwillia2-xfh.jf.intel.com.notmuch>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 7 Sep 2022 18:07:31 -0700
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> wrote:

> Andrew Morton wrote:
> > I really dislike the term "flush".  Sometimes it means writeback,
> > sometimes it means invalidate.  Perhaps at other times it means
> > both.
> > 
> > Can we please be very clear in comments and changelogs about exactly
> > what this "flush" does.   With bonus points for being more specific in the 
> > function naming?
> >   
> 
> That's a good point, "flush" has been cargo-culted along in Linux's
> cache management APIs to mean write-back-and-invalidate. In this case I
> think this API is purely about invalidate. It just so happens that x86
> has not historically had a global invalidate instruction readily
> available which leads to the overuse of wbinvd.
> 
> It would be nice to make clear that this API is purely about
> invalidating any data cached for a physical address impacted by address
> space management event (secure erase / new region provision). Write-back
> is an unnecessary side-effect.
> 
> So how about:
> 
> s/arch_flush_memregion/cpu_cache_invalidate_memregion/?

Want to indicate it 'might' write back perhaps?
So could be invalidate or clean and invalidate (using arm ARM terms just to add
to the confusion ;)

Feels like there will be potential race conditions where that matters as we might
force stale data to be written back.

Perhaps a comment is enough for that. Anyone have the "famous last words" feeling?

Jonathan