On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 5:12 PM, Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 07:44:25AM -0700, Dan Williams wrote: >> On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 7:21 PM, Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 10:10:33AM +0200, Jan Kara wrote: >> >> On Thu 28-07-16 08:19:49, Dave Chinner wrote: >> [..] >> >> So DAX doesn't need flushing to maintain consistent view of the data but it >> >> does need flushing to make sure fsync(2) results in data written via mmap >> >> to reach persistent storage. >> > >> > I thought this all changed with the removal of the pcommit >> > instruction and wmb_pmem() going away. Isn't it now a platform >> > requirement now that dirty cache lines over persistent memory ranges >> > are either guaranteed to be flushed to persistent storage on power >> > fail or when required by REQ_FLUSH? >> >> No, nothing automates cache flushing. The path of a write is: >> >> cpu-cache -> cpu-write-buffer -> bus -> imc -> imc-write-buffer -> media >> >> The ADR mechanism and the wpq-flush facility flush data thorough the >> imc (integrated memory controller) to media. dax_do_io() gets writes >> to the imc, but we still need a posted-write-buffer flush mechanism to >> guarantee data makes it out to media. > > So what you are saying is that on and ADR machine, we have these > domains w.r.t. power fail: > > cpu-cache -> cpu-write-buffer -> bus -> imc -> imc-write-buffer -> media > > |-------------volatile-------------------|-----persistent--------------| > > because anything that gets to the IMC is guaranteed to be flushed to > stable media on power fail. > > But on a posted-write-buffer system, we have this: > > cpu-cache -> cpu-write-buffer -> bus -> imc -> imc-write-buffer -> media > > |-------------volatile-------------------------------------------|--persistent--| > > IOWs, only things already posted to the media via REQ_FLUSH are > considered stable on persistent media. What happens in this case > when power fails during a media update? Incomplete writes? Yes, power failure during a media update will end up with incomplete writes on an 8-byte boundary. > >> > Or have we somehow ended up with the fucked up situation where >> > dax_do_io() writes are (effectively) immediately persistent and >> > untracked by internal infrastructure, whilst mmap() writes >> > require internal dirty tracking and fsync() to flush caches via >> > writeback? >> >> dax_do_io() writes are not immediately persistent. They bypass the >> cpu-cache and cpu-write-bufffer and are ready to be flushed to media >> by REQ_FLUSH or power-fail on an ADR system. > > IOWs, on an ADR system write is /effectively/ immediately persistent > because if power fails ADR guarantees it will be flushed to stable > media, while on a posted write system it is volatile and will be > lost. Right? Right. > > If so, that's even worse than just having mmap/write behave > differently - now writes will behave differently depending on the > specific hardware installed. I think this makes it even more > important for the DAX code to hide this behaviour from the > fielsystems by treating everything as volatile. The symmetry does sound appealing... > If we track the dirty blocks from write in the radix tree like we > for mmap, then we can just use a normal memcpy() in dax_do_io(), > getting rid of the slow cache bypass that is currently run. Radix > tree updates are much less expensive than a slow memcpy of large > amounts of data, ad fsync can then take care of persistence, just > like we do for mmap. If we go this route to increase the amount of dirty-data tracking in the radix it raises the priority of one of the items on the backlog; namely, determine the crossover point where wbinvd of the entire cache is faster than a clflush / clwb loop. > We should just make the design assumption that all persistent memory > is volatile, track where we dirty it in all paths, and use the > fastest volatile memcpy primitives available to us in the IO path. > We'll end up with a faster fastpath that if we use CPU cache bypass > copies, dax_do_io() and mmap will be coherent and synchronised, and > fsync() will have the same requirements and overhead regardless of > the way the application modifies the pmem or the hardware platform > used to implement the pmem. I like the direction, I'd still want to measure where/whether it's actually faster given the writes may have evicted hot data, and the amortized cost of the cache flushing loop. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
