Re: [PATCH 1/8] pmem: Initial version of persistent memory driver

[Boaz Harrosh]

On 03/26/2015 06:00 AM, Elliott, Robert (Server Storage) wrote:
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: linux-kernel-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:linux-kernel-
>> owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Andy Lutomirski
>> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2015 1:07 PM
>> To: Boaz Harrosh
>> Cc: Matthew Wilcox; Ross Zwisler; X86 ML; Thomas Gleixner; Dan Williams;
>> Ingo Molnar; Roger C. Pao; linux-nvdimm; linux-kernel; H. Peter Anvin;
>> Christoph Hellwig
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/8] pmem: Initial version of persistent memory driver
>>
>> On Mar 9, 2015 8:20 AM, "Boaz Harrosh" <boaz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 03/06/2015 01:03 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>> <>
>>>>
>>>> I think it would be nice to have control over the caching mode.
>>>> Depending on the application, WT or UC could make more sense.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Patches are welcome. say
>>>         map=sss@aaa:WT,sss@aaa:CA, ...
>>>
>>> But for us, with direct_access(), all benchmarks show a slight advantage
>>> for the cached mode.
>>
>> I'm sure cached is faster.  The question is: who flushes the cache?
>>
>> --Andy
> 
> Nobody.
> 
> Therefore, pmem as currently proposed (mapping the memory with
> ioremap_cache, which uses _PAGE_CACHE_MODE_WB) is unsafe unless the
> system is doing something special to ensure L1, L2, and L3 caches are
> flushed on power loss.
> 
> I think pmem needs to map the memory as UC or WT by default, providing
> WB and WC only as an option for users confident that those attributes
> are safe to use in their system.
> 
> Even using UC or WT presumes that ADR is in place.
> 

I will add command line options for these modes per range. (Unless you
care to send a patch before me)

Thanks this is a good idea
Boaz

--
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/