Re: [PATCH 0/2] "big hammer" for DAX msync/fsync correctness

[Dan Williams]

On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 7:24 AM, Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Ross Zwisler <ross.zwisler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> This series implements the very slow but correct handling for
>> blkdev_issue_flush() with DAX mappings, as discussed here:
>>
>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/10/26/116
>>
>> I don't think that we can actually do the
>>
>>     on_each_cpu(sync_cache, ...);
>>
>> ...where sync_cache is something like:
>>
>>     cache_disable();
>>     wbinvd();
>>     pcommit();
>>     cache_enable();
>>
>> solution as proposed by Dan because WBINVD + PCOMMIT doesn't guarantee that
>> your writes actually make it durably onto the DIMMs.  I believe you really do
>> need to loop through the cache lines, flush them with CLWB, then fence and
>> PCOMMIT.
>
> *blink*
> *blink*
>
> So much for not violating the principal of least surprise.  I suppose
> you've asked the hardware folks, and they've sent you down this path?

The SDM states that wbinvd only asynchronously "signals" L3 to flush.

>> I do worry that the cost of blindly flushing the entire PMEM namespace on each
>> fsync or msync will be prohibitively expensive, and that we'll by very
>> incentivized to move to the radix tree based dirty page tracking as soon as
>> possible. :)
>
> Sure, but wbinvd would be quite costly as well.  Either way I think a
> better solution will be required in the near term.
>

As Peter points out the irqoff latency that wbinvd introduces also
makes it not optimal.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/