[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1511070746190.4032@nanos>
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 2015 07:50:16 +0100 (CET)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Ross Zwisler <ross.zwisler@...ux.intel.com>,
Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>,
linux-nvdimm <linux-nvdimm@...1.01.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] "big hammer" for DAX msync/fsync correctness
On Fri, 6 Nov 2015, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 11/06/15 15:17, Dan Williams wrote:
> >>
> >> Is it really required to do that on all cpus?
> >
> > I believe it is, but I'll double check.
> >
>
> It's required on all CPUs on which the DAX memory may have been dirtied.
> This is similar to the way we flush TLBs.
Right. And that's exactly the problem: "may have been dirtied"
If DAX is used on 50% of the CPUs and the other 50% are plumming away
happily in user space or run low latency RT tasks w/o ever touching
it, then having an unconditional flush on ALL CPUs is just wrong
because you penalize the uninvolved cores with a completely pointless
SMP function call and drain their caches.
Thanks,
tglx
--
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