On Tue, 22 May 2018, Dan Williams wrote: > On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 11:41 AM, Mike Snitzer <snitzer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, May 22 2018 at 2:39am -0400, > > Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> On Sat, May 19, 2018 at 07:25:07AM +0200, Mikulas Patocka wrote: > >> > Use new API for flushing persistent memory. > >> > >> The sentence doesnt make much sense. 'A new API', 'A better > >> abstraction' maybe? > >> > >> > > >> > The problem is this: > >> > * on X86-64, non-temporal stores have the best performance > >> > * ARM64 doesn't have non-temporal stores, so we must flush cache. We > >> > should flush cache as late as possible, because it performs better this > >> > way. > >> > > >> > We introduce functions pmem_memcpy, pmem_flush and pmem_commit. To commit > >> > data persistently, all three functions must be called. > >> > > >> > The macro pmem_assign may be used instead of pmem_memcpy. pmem_assign > >> > (unlike pmem_memcpy) guarantees that 8-byte values are written atomically. > >> > > >> > On X86, pmem_memcpy is memcpy_flushcache, pmem_flush is empty and > >> > pmem_commit is wmb. > >> > > >> > On ARM64, pmem_memcpy is memcpy, pmem_flush is arch_wb_cache_pmem and > >> > pmem_commit is empty. > >> > >> All these should be provided by the pmem layer, and be properly > >> documented. And be sorted before adding your new target that uses > >> them. > > > > I don't see that as a hard requirement. Mikulas did the work to figure > > out what is more optimal on x86_64 vs amd64. It makes a difference for > > his target and that is sufficient to carry it locally until/when it is > > either elevated to pmem. > > > > We cannot even get x86 and swait maintainers to reply to repeat requests > > for review. Stacking up further deps on pmem isn't high on my list. > > > > Except I'm being responsive. I agree with Christoph that we should > build pmem helpers at an architecture level and not per-driver. Let's > make this driver depend on ARCH_HAS_PMEM_API and require ARM to catch > up to x86 in this space. We already have PowerPC enabling PMEM API, so > I don't see an unreasonable barrier to ask the same of ARM. This patch > is not even cc'd to linux-arm-kernel. Has the subject been broached > with them? The ARM code can't "catch-up" with X86. On X86 - non-temporal stores (i.e. memcpy_flushcache) are faster than cached write and cache flushing. The ARM architecture doesn't have non-temporal stores. So, memcpy_flushcache on ARM does memcpy (that writes data to the cache) and then flushes the cache. But this eager cache flushig is slower than late cache flushing. The optimal code sequence on ARM to write to persistent memory is to call memcpy, then do something else, and then call arch_wb_cache_pmem as late as possible. And this ARM-optimized code sequence is just horribly slow on X86. This issue can't be "fixed" in ARM-specific source code. The ARM processor have such a characteristics that eager cache flushing is slower than late cache flushing - and that's it - you can't change processor behavior. If you don't want '#if defined(CONFIG_X86_64)' in the dm-writecache driver, then just take the functions that are in this conditional block and move them to some generic linux header. Mikulas -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
