On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 8:01 PM, Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Fri, 24 Nov 2017, Dan Williams wrote: > > > On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 6:36 PM, Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Hi > > > > > > Here I'm sending slighly update dm-writecache target. > > > > > > > I would expect some theory of operation documentation in the changelog > > or in Documentation/ for a new driver. > > It caches writes for a block device in persistent memory. It doesn't cache > reads because reads are supposed to be cached in normal ram. Is it a cache or more of a write-buffer? How aggressively does it write back data? Are there any recommendations about cache size vs backing device size? Does it also buffer sequential writes? For example bcache tries to avoid caching sequential traffic. > > > > Signed-off-by: Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > [..] > > > +/* > > > + * The clflushopt instruction is very slow on Broadwell, so we use non-temporal > > > + * stores instead. > > > + */ > > > > The clflushopt instruction's first instantiation in a cpu was after > > Broadwell. Also, the performance of clflushopt does not much matter > > when running on a system without ADR (asynchronous DRAM refresh) where > > flushing the cpu cache can just leave the writes stranded on their way > > to the DIMM. ADR is not available on general purpose servers until > > ACPI 6.x NFIT-defined persistent memory platforms. > > There used to be pcommit instruction, but intel abandoned it - see > https://software.intel.com/en-us/blogs/2016/09/12/deprecate-pcommit-instruction Yes, I am familiar with that document, I wrote the pcommit removal patch and referenced ADR in the commit message: fd1d961dd681 x86/insn: remove pcommit > So, according to the document, flushing the cache should be enough for > writes to reach persistent memory. The document assumes ADR is present. > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_X86_64 > > > > In general something is broken if we end up with per-arch ifdefs like > > this in drivers to handle persistent memory. This should be using the > > pmem api or extensions of it, and we need to settle on a mechanism for > > upper-level drivers to ask if pmem is driving platform protected > > persistent memory. > > > > > +#define NT_STORE(dest, src) asm ("movnti %1, %0" : "=m"(dest) : "r"(src)) > > > +#define FLUSH_RANGE(dax, ptr, size) do { } while (0) > > > +#define COMMIT_FLUSHED() wmb() > > > +#else > > > +#define NT_STORE(dest, src) ACCESS_ONCE(dest) = (src) > > > +#define FLUSH_RANGE dax_flush > > > +#define COMMIT_FLUSHED() do { } while (0) > > > > Is this just for test purposes? How does the user discover that they > > are running in a degraded mode as far as persistence guarantees? I > > think we should be falling back DM_WRITECACHE_ONLY_SSD mode if we're > > not on a pmem platform. > > What degraded mode do you mean? Fall back to treating pmem like an SSD / block-device. > According to that document, flushing cache > should be enough. If it is not enough, what else do I need to do to flush > cache? ...ensure that you are on a platform where flushing the cpu cache is enough. > The above code is not for test purposes. It is for performance purposes. > > On dual-socket Broadwell server with persistent memory What platform is this... does it have ADR, does the BIOS produce an NFIT? > when we write to > persistent memory using cached write instructions and use dax_flush > afterwards to flush cache for the affected range, the performance is about > 350MB/s. It is practically unusable - worse than low-end SSDs. > > On the other hand, the movnti instruction can sustain performance of one > 8-byte write per clock cycle. We don't have to flush cache afterwards, the > only thing that must be done is to flush the write-combining buffer with > the sfence instruction. Movnti has much better throughput than dax_flush. What about memcpy_flushcache? > You argue that I should use the pmem api, but there is no pmem api > providing the movnti intruction. I have no choice, but coding the > instruction directly in assembler. You have not convinced me that memcpy_flushcache is insufficient, or that the driver is mistakenly assuming guarantees about persistence when it is not running on a persistent memory enabled platform. > If you want to create API, take that "NT_STORE" definition and move it to > some x86-specific include file. I'm asking you to not solve global problems in your local driver. If the pmem api is deficient for your use case then let's work on improving it, but as of now I'm still trying to baseline your assumptions. -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
