Re: [PATCH v3 02/15] dax: increase granularity of dax_clear_blocks() operations

[Dave Chinner]

On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 07:27:26PM -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 4:51 PM, Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 01, 2015 at 11:29:53PM -0500, Dan Williams wrote:
> > The zeroing (and the data, for that matter) doesn't need to be
> > committed to persistent store until the allocation is written and
> > committed to the journal - that will happen with a REQ_FLUSH|REQ_FUA
> > write, so it makes sense to deploy the big hammer and delay the
> > blocking CPU cache flushes until the last possible moment in cases
> > like this.
> 
> In pmem terms that would be a non-temporal memset plus a delayed
> wmb_pmem at REQ_FLUSH time.  Better to write around the cache than
> loop over the dirty-data issuing flushes after the fact.  We'll bump
> the priority of the non-temporal memset implementation.

Why is it better to do two synchronous physical writes to memory
within a couple of microseconds of CPU time rather than writing them
through the cache and, in most cases, only doing one physical write
to memory in a separate context that expects to wait for a flush
to complete?

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
--
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/