From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E594C00140 for ; Mon, 8 Aug 2022 20:52:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S238714AbiHHUwP (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Aug 2022 16:52:15 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:35368 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S237173AbiHHUwN (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Aug 2022 16:52:13 -0400 Received: from mga12.intel.com (mga12.intel.com [192.55.52.136]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3236D15A2E; Mon, 8 Aug 2022 13:52:13 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1659991933; x=1691527933; h=message-id:date:mime-version:subject:to:cc:references: from:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=bhQT0u3PtjrFfLcjH/tloZ3NCQW+htlKfL1vcZlonW0=; b=NeGbsFZlv8AplYyGkMUkDJ8ywZumlA1SOlT8Qmps8lLGZHsiRFMkthHP qNX+2VJR5FJrGJCAQT/5+r5lPe0MyNtuL643ZCp+/fvAJBRRlJWU0TPGM 14DoAo4f6U8o3jvtWUnLBsqXQRs4T9DBGM/Nwfnsa1pPXTR50EsT1bBPy H6a55PG/yWJCQdimfwluN0HkS4MQN3eS+wSwPyxjg1v4OiRYvTDP2zzBg l6ya3AK/KZWgRbPnVf/dx+luOycLCYOgNARCjei+mXVq6Hfij7/07Mz3v MxpyhDvPx3wO7Hr65lGtBl/DMiJ/y6kKx6cDy54thCakgte4LS/zqddOa Q==; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6400,9594,10433"; a="270465458" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.93,222,1654585200"; d="scan'208";a="270465458" Received: from fmsmga001.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.23]) by fmsmga106.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 08 Aug 2022 13:52:12 -0700 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.93,222,1654585200"; d="scan'208";a="746786724" Received: from djiang5-mobl1.amr.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.212.34.69]) ([10.212.34.69]) by fmsmga001-auth.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 08 Aug 2022 13:52:09 -0700 Message-ID: <750f836b-2e31-da48-3c72-94be44efb9e4@intel.com> Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2022 13:52:07 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/91.0 Thunderbird/91.11.0 Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] cxl: BG operations and device sanitation Content-Language: en-US To: Davidlohr Bueso Cc: linux-cxl@vger.kernel.org, dan.j.williams@intel.com, bwidawsk@kernel.org, Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com, ira.weiny@intel.com, alison.schofield@intel.com, vishal.l.verma@intel.com, a.manzanares@samsung.com, mcgrof@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20220804045029.2905056-1-dave@stgolabs.net> <20220804200712.gaiswmkjsa3pnkc5@offworld> From: Dave Jiang In-Reply-To: <20220804200712.gaiswmkjsa3pnkc5@offworld> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-cxl@vger.kernel.org On 8/4/2022 1:07 PM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote: > On Thu, 04 Aug 2022, Dave Jiang wrote: > >> From the operational sense everything looks good to me. As for the >> polling delay on overwrite, with pre-CXL pmem on Optane, we've >> discovered that overwrite can take a long time depending on the size. >> Sometimes MANY hours if the size is really large. We just opted to >> increment the polling interval as time went on [1] instead of based on >> size. > > Thanks for having a look. Sure, we can do that, I have no particular > attachment > to doing it based on size (it's just the way it occured to me). I am > curious, > though: While regardless of size vs time based estimates, are the numbers > expected to be similar for volatile regions? All these numbers being from > nvdimm DSM docs. I don't either. Just pointing out that's what we did with the Optane stuff. I think that the volatile devices (DRAM?) would probably be a lot faster when it comes to writes. So maybe won't take as long. And also perhaps smaller in size in the immediate future? Just guessing. > > Thanks, > Davidlohr