From: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
To: Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@redhat.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, X86 ML <x86@kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
device-mapper development <dm-devel@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] memcpy_flushcache: use cache flusing for larger lengths
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2020 11:28:08 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAPcyv4gpe8u=zNrRhvd9ioVNGbOJfRUXzFZuV--be6Hbj0xXtQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LRH.2.02.2004160411460.7833@file01.intranet.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com>
On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 1:24 AM Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, 9 Apr 2020, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
>
> > With dm-writecache on emulated pmem (with the memmap argument), we get
> >
> > With the original kernel:
> > 8508 - 11378
> > real 0m4.960s
> > user 0m0.638s
> > sys 0m4.312s
> >
> > With dm-writecache hacked to use cached writes + clflushopt:
> > 8505 - 11378
> > real 0m4.151s
> > user 0m0.560s
> > sys 0m3.582s
>
> I did some multithreaded tests:
> http://people.redhat.com/~mpatocka/testcases/pmem/microbenchmarks/pmem-multithreaded.txt
>
> And it turns out that for singlethreaded access, write+clwb performs
> better, while for multithreaded access, non-temporal stores perform
> better.
>
> 1 sequential write-nt 8 bytes 1.3 GB/s
> 2 sequential write-nt 8 bytes 2.5 GB/s
> 3 sequential write-nt 8 bytes 2.8 GB/s
> 4 sequential write-nt 8 bytes 2.8 GB/s
> 5 sequential write-nt 8 bytes 2.5 GB/s
>
> 1 sequential write 8 bytes + clwb 1.6 GB/s
> 2 sequential write 8 bytes + clwb 2.4 GB/s
> 3 sequential write 8 bytes + clwb 1.7 GB/s
> 4 sequential write 8 bytes + clwb 1.2 GB/s
> 5 sequential write 8 bytes + clwb 0.8 GB/s
>
> For one thread, we can see that write-nt 8 bytes has 1.3 GB/s and write
> 8+clwb has 1.6 GB/s, but for multiple threads, write-nt has better
> throughput.
>
> The dm-writecache target is singlethreaded (all the copying is done while
> holding the writecache lock), so it benefits from clwb.
>
> Should memcpy_flushcache be changed to write+clwb? Or are there some
> multithreaded users of memcpy_flushcache that would be hurt by this
> change?
Maybe this is asking for a specific memcpy_flushcache_inatomic()
implementation for your use case, but leave nt-writes for the general
case?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-04-16 18:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-04-07 15:01 [PATCH] memcpy_flushcache: use cache flusing for larger lengths Mikulas Patocka
2020-04-07 16:09 ` Andy Lutomirski
2020-04-07 16:33 ` Mikulas Patocka
2020-04-07 17:52 ` Dan Williams
2020-04-08 18:54 ` Mikulas Patocka
2020-04-08 19:29 ` Dan Williams
2020-04-09 14:36 ` Mikulas Patocka
2020-04-16 8:24 ` Mikulas Patocka
2020-04-16 8:24 ` Mikulas Patocka
2020-04-16 18:28 ` Dan Williams [this message]
2020-04-17 12:47 ` [PATCH] x86: introduce memcpy_flushcache_clflushopt Mikulas Patocka
2020-04-17 17:57 ` Dan Williams
2020-04-17 20:45 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-04-20 13:47 ` [PATCH v2] x86: introduce memcpy_flushcache_single Mikulas Patocka
2020-04-21 18:43 ` Dan Williams
2020-04-18 13:27 ` [PATCH] x86: introduce memcpy_flushcache_clflushopt David Laight
2020-04-18 15:21 ` Mikulas Patocka
2020-04-19 17:48 ` David Laight
2020-04-20 4:49 ` Dan Williams
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2020-03-29 20:28 [PATCH] memcpy_flushcache: use cache flusing for larger lengths Mikulas Patocka
2020-03-29 20:28 ` Mikulas Patocka
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='CAPcyv4gpe8u=zNrRhvd9ioVNGbOJfRUXzFZuV--be6Hbj0xXtQ@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=dan.j.williams@intel.com \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=dm-devel@redhat.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=mpatocka@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.