[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e31a698c-09f0-c551-3dfe-646816905e65@gentwo.org>
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2024 10:23:53 -0800 (PST)
From: "Christoph Lameter (Ampere)" <cl@...two.org>
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, hannes@...xchg.org,
clm@...a.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, willy@...radead.org,
kirill@...temov.name, bfoster@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCHSET v6 0/12] Uncached buffered IO
On Tue, 3 Dec 2024, Jens Axboe wrote:
>
> So here's a new approach to the same concent, but using the page cache
> as synchronization. That makes RWF_UNCACHED less special, in that it's
> just page cache IO, except it prunes the ranges once IO is completed.
Great idea and someting that is really important these days.
However, one nit that I have is the use of the term "uncached" for a
folio/page. An uncached "page frame" refers to a page frame that requires
accesses not going through the cpu cache. I.e. device mappings. This is
an established mm/cpu term as far as I can tell.
So maybe be a bit more specific about which cache this is?
PAGE_CACHE_UNCACHED?
or use a different term. It is cached after all but only for a brief
period. So this may be a "TEMPORAL_PAGE" or so? (Similar to the x86
"non-temporal" stores).
Powered by blists - more mailing lists