On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 10:37 AM, Dr. David Alan Gilbert <dgilb...@redhat.com> wrote: > * Dan Williams (dan.j.willi...@intel.com) wrote: >> On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 10:08 AM, Dr. David Alan Gilbert >> <dgilb...@redhat.com> wrote: >> > * Dan Williams (dan.j.willi...@intel.com) wrote: >> >> On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 5:24 AM, Dr. David Alan Gilbert >> >> <dgilb...@redhat.com> wrote: >> >> > * Haozhong Zhang (haozhong.zh...@intel.com) wrote: >> >> >> On 02/07/18 13:03 +0000, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote: >> >> >> > * Haozhong Zhang (haozhong.zh...@intel.com) wrote: >> >> >> > > On 02/07/18 11:54 +0000, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote: >> >> >> > > > * Haozhong Zhang (haozhong.zh...@intel.com) wrote: >> >> >> > > > > When loading a compressed page to persistent memory, flush CPU >> >> >> > > > > cache >> >> >> > > > > after the data is decompressed. Combined with a call to >> >> >> > > > > pmem_drain() >> >> >> > > > > at the end of memory loading, we can guarantee those >> >> >> > > > > compressed pages >> >> >> > > > > are persistently loaded to PMEM. >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > Can you explain why this can use the flush and doesn't need the >> >> >> > > > special >> >> >> > > > memset? >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > The best approach to ensure the write persistence is to operate >> >> >> > > pmem >> >> >> > > all via libpmem, e.g., pmem_memcpy_nodrain() + pmem_drain(). >> >> >> > > However, >> >> >> > > the write to pmem in this case is performed by uncompress() which >> >> >> > > is >> >> >> > > implemented out of QEMU and libpmem. It may or may not use libpmem, >> >> >> > > which is not controlled by QEMU. Therefore, we have to use the less >> >> >> > > optimal approach, that is to flush cache for all pmem addresses >> >> >> > > that >> >> >> > > uncompress() may have written, i.e.,/e.g., memcpy() and/or >> >> >> > > memset() in >> >> >> > > uncompress(), and pmem_flush() + pmem_drain() in QEMU. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > In what way is it less optimal? >> >> >> > If that's a legal thing to do, then why not just do a pmem_flush + >> >> >> > pmem_drain right at the end of the ram loading and leave all the >> >> >> > rest of >> >> >> > the code untouched? >> >> >> >> >> >> For example, the implementation pmem_memcpy_nodrain() prefers to use >> >> >> movnt instructions w/o flush to write pmem if those instructions are >> >> >> available, and falls back to memcpy() + flush if movnt are not >> >> >> available, so I suppose the latter is less optimal. >> >> > >> >> > But if you use normal memcpy calls to copy a few GB of RAM in an >> >> > incoming migrate and then do a single flush at the end, isn't that >> >> > better? >> >> >> >> Not really, because now you've needlessly polluted the cache and are >> >> spending CPU looping over the cachelines that could have been bypassed >> >> with movnt. >> > >> > What's different in the pmem case? Isn't what you've said true in the >> > normal migrate case as well? >> > >> >> In the normal migrate case the memory is volatile so once the copy is >> globally visiable you're done. In the pmem case the migration is not >> complete until the persistent state is synchronized. >> >> Note, I'm talking in generalities because I don't know the deeper >> details of the migrate flow. > > On the receive side of a migrate, during a normal precopy migrate > (without xbzrle) nothing is going to be reading that RAM until > the whole RAM load has completed anyway - so we're not benefiting from > it being in the caches either. > > In the pmem case, again since nothing is going to be reading from that > RAM until the end anyway, why bother flushing as we go as opposed to at > the end?
Flushing at the end implies doing a large loop flushing the caches at the end of the transfer because the x86 ISA only exposes a line-by-line flush to unprivileged code rather than a full cache flush like what the kernel can do with wbinvd. So, better to flush as we go rather than incur the overhead of the loop at the end. I.e. I'm assuming it is more efficient to do 'movnt' in the first instance and not worry about the flush loop.
