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: 18+ 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 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
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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).