On 05/28/2015 05:02 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
Hmm, yes, but I believe Ross (on vacation now) was following the
precedent set by commit cd8ddf1a2800 "x86: clflush_page_range needs
mfence" whereby the api handles all necessary fencing internally.
Shall we introduce something like __unordered_clflush_cache_range()
for arch_persistent_flush() to use with the understanding it will be
following up with the wmb() in arch_persistent_sync()?
Are we ever going to have arch_persistent_sync() without
However, thinking about it, it would be more efficient to do all flushes
first and then have a single barrier.