[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200714192930.GH5523@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2020 21:29:30 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, x86@...nel.org,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Vishal Verma <vishal.l.verma@...el.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 12/15] kmap: Add stray write protection for device
pages
On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 12:06:16PM -0700, Ira Weiny wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 10:44:51AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > So, if I followed along correctly, you're proposing to do a WRMSR per
> > k{,un}map{_atomic}(), sounds like excellent performance all-round :-(
>
> Only to pages which have this additional protection, ie not DRAM.
>
> User mappings of this memory is not affected (would be covered by User PKeys if
> desired). User mappings to persistent memory are the primary use case and the
> performant path.
Because performance to non-volatile memory doesn't matter? I think Dave
has a better answer here ...
Powered by blists - more mailing lists