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

[Dave Chinner]

On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 10:57:57AM -0700, Ross Zwisler wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 09:31:11PM -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 8:48 PM, Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > 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?
> > 
> > With a switch to non-temporal writes they wouldn't be synchronous,
> > although it's doubtful that the subsequent writes after zeroing would
> > also hit the store buffer.
> > 
> > If we had a method to flush by physical-cache-way rather than a
> > virtual address then it would indeed be better to save up for one
> > final flush, but when we need to resort to looping through all the
> > virtual addresses that might have touched it gets expensive.
> 
> I agree with the idea that we should avoid the "big hammer" flushing in
> response to REQ_FLUSH.  Here are the steps that are needed to make sure that
> something is durable on media with PMEM/DAX:
> 
> 1) Write, either with non-temporal stores or with stores that use the
> processor cache
> 
> 2) If you wrote using the processor cache, flush or write back the processor
> cache
> 
> 3) wmb_pmem(), synchronizing all non-temporal writes and flushes durably to
> media.

Right, and when you look at buffered IO, we have:

1) write to page cache, mark page dirty
2) if you have dirty cached pages, flush dirty pages to device
3) REQ_FLUSH causes everything to be durable.

> PMEM does all I/O using 1 and 3 with non-temporal stores, and mmaps that go to
> userspace can used cached writes, so on fsync/msync we do a bunch of flushes
> for step 2.  In either case I think we should have the PMEM driver just do
> step 3, the wmb_pmem(), in response to REQ_FLUSH.  This allows the zeroing
> code to just do non-temporal writes of zeros, the DAX fsync/msync code to just
> do flushes (which is what my patch set already does), and just leave the
> wmb_pmem() to the PMEM driver at REQ_FLUSH time.
>
> This just means that the layers above the PMEM code either need to use
> non-temporal writes for their I/Os, or do flushing, which I don't think is too
> onerous.

Agreed - it fits neatly into the existing infrastructure and
algorithms and there's no evidence to suggest that using the
existing infrastructure is going to cause undue burden on PMEM based
workloads. Hence I really think this is the right way to proceed...

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/