linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH v2 03/11] pmem: enable REQ_FUA/REQ

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20151116235724.GA10256@linux.intel.com>
Date:	Mon, 16 Nov 2015 16:57:24 -0700
From:	Ross Zwisler <ross.zwisler@...ux.intel.com>
To:	Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Cc:	Ross Zwisler <ross.zwisler@...ux.intel.com>,
	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Andreas Dilger <adilger@...ger.ca>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
	Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
	Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>,
	Jeff Layton <jlayton@...chiereds.net>,
	Matthew Wilcox <willy@...ux.intel.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	linux-ext4 <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	"linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org" <linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org>,
	X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>, XFS Developers <xfs@....sgi.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Matthew Wilcox <matthew.r.wilcox@...el.com>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 03/11] pmem: enable REQ_FUA/REQ_FLUSH handling

On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 12:34:55PM -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 11:48 AM, Ross Zwisler
> <ross.zwisler@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 09:28:59AM -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
> >> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 6:05 AM, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz> wrote:
> >> > On Mon 16-11-15 14:37:14, Jan Kara wrote:
> [..]
> > Is there any reason why this wouldn't work or wouldn't be a good idea?
> 
> We don't have numbers to support the claim that pcommit is so
> expensive as to need be deferred, especially if the upper layers are
> already taking the hit on doing the flushes.
> 
> REQ_FLUSH, means flush your volatile write cache.  Currently all I/O
> through the driver never hits a volatile cache so there's no need to
> tell the block layer that we have a volatile write cache, especially
> when you have the core mm taking responsibility for doing cache
> maintenance for dax-mmap ranges.
> 
> We also don't have numbers on if/when wbinvd is a more performant solution.
> 
> tl;dr Now that we have a baseline implementation can we please use
> data to make future arch decisions?

Sure, fair enough.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html