Re: [PATCH v4 6/6] arch, x86: pmem api for ensuring durability of persistent memory updates

From: Andy Lutomirski
Date: Wed Jun 17 2015 - 11:09:18 EST

On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 7:54 AM, Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 4:31 AM, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> wrote:
>> This mess with arch_ methods and an ops vecor is almost unreadable.
>> What's the problem with having something like:
>> pmem_foo()
>> {
>> if (arch_has_pmem) // or sync_pmem
>> arch_pmem_foo();
>> generic_pmem_foo();
>> }
>> This adds a branch at runtime, but that shoudn't really be any slower
>> than an indirect call on architectures that matter.
> No doubt it's premature optimization, but it bothered me that we'll
> end up calling cpuid perhaps multiple times every i/o. If it's just a
> readability concern I could wrap it in helpers. Getting it upstream
> is my primary concern at this point so I have no strong attachment to
> the indirect calls if that's all that is preventing an ack.

A cpuid per i/o would be a killer, but the cpufeature code is way
smarter than that.

You want static_cpu_has, though -- it's even faster, since it gets
patched at boot time.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at