On Sat, May 6, 2017 at 2:46 AM, Ingo Molnar <mingo(a)kernel.org> wrote:
* Dan Williams <dan.j.williams(a)intel.com> wrote:
> On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 3:44 PM, Kani, Toshimitsu <toshi.kani(a)hpe.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, 2017-05-05 at 15:25 -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> >> On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 1:39 PM, Kani, Toshimitsu <toshi.kani(a)hpe.com>
> >> wrote:
> > :
> >> > > ---
> >> > > Changes since the initial RFC:
> >> > > * s/writethru/wt/ since we already have ioremap_wt(),
> >> > > set_memory_wt(), etc. (Ingo)
> >> >
> >> > Sorry I should have said earlier, but I think the term "wt"
> >> > misleading. Non-temporal stores used in memcpy_wt() provide WC
> >> > semantics, not WT semantics.
> >> The non-temporal stores do, but memcpy_wt() is using a combination of
> >> non-temporal stores and explicit cache flushing.
> >> > How about using "nocache" as it's been
> >> > used in __copy_user_nocache()?
> >> The difference in my mind is that the "_nocache" suffix indicates
> >> opportunistic / optional cache pollution avoidance whereas "_wt"
> >> strictly arranges for caches not to contain dirty data upon
> >> completion of the routine. For example, non-temporal stores on older
> >> x86 cpus could potentially leave dirty data in the cache, so
> >> memcpy_wt on those cpus would need to use explicit cache flushing.
> > I see. I agree that its behavior is different from the existing one
> > with "_nocache". That said, I think "wt" or
> > means that writes allocate cachelines and keep them clean by writing to
> > memory. So, subsequent reads to the destination will hit the
> > cachelines. This is not the case with this interface.
> True... maybe _nocache_strict()? Or, leave it _wt() until someone
> comes along and is surprised that the cache is not warm for reads
> after memcpy_wt(), at which point we can ask "why not just use plain
> memcpy then?", or set the page-attributes to WT.
Perhaps a _nocache_flush() postfix, to signal both that it's non-temporal and that
no cache line is left around afterwards (dirty or clean)?
Yes, I think "flush" belongs in the name, and to make it easily
grep-able separate from _nocache we can call it _flushcache? An
efficient implementation will use _nocache / non-temporal stores
internally, but external consumers just care about the state of the
cache after the call.