From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <willy@infradead.org>
Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [65.50.211.133])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256
 bits)) (No client certificate requested)
 by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3wNTST2GgqzDqLX
 for <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>; Thu, 11 May 2017 07:11:37 +1000 (AEST)
Date: Wed, 10 May 2017 14:11:31 -0700
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
To: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Cc: mhocko@kernel.org, pasha.tatashin@oracle.com,
 linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, sparclinux@vger.kernel.org,
 linux-mm@kvack.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
 linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, borntraeger@de.ibm.com,
 heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [v3 0/9] parallelized "struct page" zeroing
Message-ID: <20170510211131.GD1590@bombadil.infradead.org>
References: <20170510145726.GM31466@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <20170510.111943.1940354761418085760.davem@davemloft.net>
 <20170510171703.GC1590@bombadil.infradead.org>
 <20170510.140026.1367439672848112283.davem@davemloft.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
In-Reply-To: <20170510.140026.1367439672848112283.davem@davemloft.net>
List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List <linuxppc-dev.lists.ozlabs.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.ozlabs.org/options/linuxppc-dev>,
 <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>
List-Help: <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev>,
 <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=subscribe>

On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 02:00:26PM -0400, David Miller wrote:
> From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
> Date: Wed, 10 May 2017 10:17:03 -0700
> > On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 11:19:43AM -0400, David Miller wrote:
> >> I guess it might be clearer if you understand what the block
> >> initializing stores do on sparc64.  There are no memory accesses at
> >> all.
> >> 
> >> The cpu just zeros out the cache line, that's it.
> >> 
> >> No L3 cache line is allocated.  So this "wipe everything" behavior
> >> will not happen in the L3.
> > 
> > There's either something wrong with your explanation or my reading
> > skills :-)
> > 
> > "There are no memory accesses"
> > "No L3 cache line is allocated"
> > 
> > You can have one or the other ... either the CPU sends a cacheline-sized
> > write of zeroes to memory without allocating an L3 cache line (maybe
> > using the store buffer?), or the CPU allocates an L3 cache line and sets
> > its contents to zeroes, probably putting it in the last way of the set
> > so it's the first thing to be evicted if not touched.
> 
> There is no conflict in what I said.
> 
> Only an L2 cache line is allocated and cleared.  L3 is left alone.

I thought SPARC had inclusive caches.  So allocating an L2 cacheline
would necessitate allocating an L3 cacheline.  Or is this an exception
to the normal order of things?