[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <x49a8r2aes5.fsf@segfault.boston.devel.redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 17:01:30 -0400
From: Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>
To: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@...com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
linux-nvdimm <linux-nvdimm@...1.01.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
david <david@...morbit.com>,
"linux-kernel\@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] pmem, dax: clean up clear_pmem()
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com> writes:
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 1:48 PM, Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com> wrote:
>> Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com> writes:
>>
>>> Both, __dax_pmd_fault, and clear_pmem() were taking special steps to
>>> clear memory a page at a time to take advantage of non-temporal
>>> clear_page() implementations. However, x86_64 does not use
>>> non-temporal instructions for clear_page(), and arch_clear_pmem() was
>>> always incurring the cost of __arch_wb_cache_pmem().
>>>
>>> Clean up the assumption that doing clear_pmem() a page at a time is more
>>> performant.
>>
>> Wouldn't another solution be to actually use non-temporal stores?
>
> Sure.
>
>> Why did you choose to punt?
>
> Just a priority call at this point. Patches welcome of course ;-).
OK. Patch is harmless.
Reviewed-by: Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists