[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170506094652.sgiwijzursabbiab@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 6 May 2017 11:46:52 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Cc: "Kani, Toshimitsu" <toshi.kani@....com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-block@...r.kernel.org" <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
"jmoyer@...hat.com" <jmoyer@...hat.com>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"hch@....de" <hch@....de>,
"viro@...iv.linux.org.uk" <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"mawilcox@...rosoft.com" <mawilcox@...rosoft.com>,
"hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>,
"linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org" <linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org>,
"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
"ross.zwisler@...ux.intel.com" <ross.zwisler@...ux.intel.com>,
"jack@...e.cz" <jack@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] x86, uaccess: introduce copy_from_iter_wt for pmem /
writethrough operations
* Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com> wrote:
> On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 3:44 PM, Kani, Toshimitsu <toshi.kani@....com> wrote:
> > On Fri, 2017-05-05 at 15:25 -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> >> On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 1:39 PM, Kani, Toshimitsu <toshi.kani@....com>
> >> wrote:
> > :
> >> > > ---
> >> > > Changes since the initial RFC:
> >> > > * s/writethru/wt/ since we already have ioremap_wt(),
> >> > > set_memory_wt(), etc. (Ingo)
> >> >
> >> > Sorry I should have said earlier, but I think the term "wt" is
> >> > misleading. Non-temporal stores used in memcpy_wt() provide WC
> >> > semantics, not WT semantics.
> >>
> >> The non-temporal stores do, but memcpy_wt() is using a combination of
> >> non-temporal stores and explicit cache flushing.
> >>
> >> > How about using "nocache" as it's been
> >> > used in __copy_user_nocache()?
> >>
> >> The difference in my mind is that the "_nocache" suffix indicates
> >> opportunistic / optional cache pollution avoidance whereas "_wt"
> >> strictly arranges for caches not to contain dirty data upon
> >> completion of the routine. For example, non-temporal stores on older
> >> x86 cpus could potentially leave dirty data in the cache, so
> >> memcpy_wt on those cpus would need to use explicit cache flushing.
> >
> > I see. I agree that its behavior is different from the existing one
> > with "_nocache". That said, I think "wt" or "write-through" generally
> > means that writes allocate cachelines and keep them clean by writing to
> > memory. So, subsequent reads to the destination will hit the
> > cachelines. This is not the case with this interface.
>
> True... maybe _nocache_strict()? Or, leave it _wt() until someone
> comes along and is surprised that the cache is not warm for reads
> after memcpy_wt(), at which point we can ask "why not just use plain
> memcpy then?", or set the page-attributes to WT.
Perhaps a _nocache_flush() postfix, to signal both that it's non-temporal and that
no cache line is left around afterwards (dirty or clean)?
Thanks,
Ingo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists