From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "H. Peter Anvin" Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] x86, pmem: add PMEM API for persistent memory Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 21:19:01 -0700 Message-ID: <5567E8B5.3080801@zytor.com> References: <1432852553-24865-1-git-send-email-ross.zwisler@linux.intel.com> <1432852553-24865-4-git-send-email-ross.zwisler@linux.intel.com> <5567A2C4.3040407@zytor.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from terminus.zytor.com ([198.137.202.10]:55915 "EHLO mail.zytor.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750741AbbE2ET2 (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 May 2015 00:19:28 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Dan Williams Cc: Ross Zwisler , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Linux ACPI , linux-nvdimm , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , X86 ML 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 arch_persistent_flush()? However, thinking about it, it would be more efficient to do all flushes first and then have a single barrier. -hpa