On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 04:31:18PM +0800, Dennis.Wu wrote: > reason: in the current BTT implimentation deepflush is always > used and deepflush is very expensive. Since customer already > know the ADR can protect the WPQ data in memory controller and > no need to call deepflush to get better performance. BTT w/o > deepflush, performance can improve 300%~600% with diff FIO jobs. > > How: Add one param "no_deepflush" in the nfit module parameter. > if "modprob nfit no_deepflush=1", customer can get the higher > performance but not strict data security. Before modprob nfit, > you may need to "ndctl disable-region".
This goes back to my question from years ago: why do we ever do this deep flush in the Linux nvdimm stack to start with?
