From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> To: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> Cc: arnd@arndb.de, mingo@redhat.com, bp@alien8.de, hpa@zytor.com, tglx@linutronix.de, ross.zwisler@linux.intel.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, jgross@suse.com, x86@kernel.org, toshi.kani@hp.com, linux-nvdimm@ml01.01.org, benh@kernel.crashing.org, mcgrof@suse.com, konrad.wilk@oracle.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stefan.bader@canonical.com, luto@amacapital.net, linux-mm@kvack.org, geert@linux-m68k.org, ralf@linux-mips.org, hmh@hmh.eng.br, mpe@ellerman.id.au, tj@kernel.org, paulus@samba.org, hch@lst.de Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 6/6] arch, x86: pmem api for ensuring durability of persistent memory updates Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 13:31:21 +0200 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20150617113121.GC9246@lst.de> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20150611211947.10271.80768.stgit@dwillia2-desk3.amr.corp.intel.com> This mess with arch_ methods and an ops vecor is almost unreadable. What's the problem with having something like: pmem_foo() { if (arch_has_pmem) // or sync_pmem arch_pmem_foo(); generic_pmem_foo(); } This adds a branch at runtime, but that shoudn't really be any slower than an indirect call on architectures that matter.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> To: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> Cc: arnd@arndb.de, mingo@redhat.com, bp@alien8.de, hpa@zytor.com, tglx@linutronix.de, ross.zwisler@linux.intel.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, jgross@suse.com, x86@kernel.org, toshi.kani@hp.com, linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org, benh@kernel.crashing.org, mcgrof@suse.com, konrad.wilk@oracle.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stefan.bader@canonical.com, luto@amacapital.net, linux-mm@kvack.org, geert@linux-m68k.org, ralf@linux-mips.org, hmh@hmh.eng.br, mpe@ellerman.id.au, tj@kernel.org, paulus@samba.org, hch@lst.de Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 6/6] arch, x86: pmem api for ensuring durability of persistent memory updates Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 13:31:21 +0200 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20150617113121.GC9246@lst.de> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20150611211947.10271.80768.stgit@dwillia2-desk3.amr.corp.intel.com> This mess with arch_ methods and an ops vecor is almost unreadable. What's the problem with having something like: pmem_foo() { if (arch_has_pmem) // or sync_pmem arch_pmem_foo(); generic_pmem_foo(); } This adds a branch at runtime, but that shoudn't really be any slower than an indirect call on architectures that matter. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-06-17 11:31 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2015-06-11 21:19 [-tip PATCH v4 0/6] pmem api, generic ioremap_cache, and memremap Dan Williams 2015-06-11 21:19 ` Dan Williams 2015-06-11 21:19 ` [PATCH v4 1/6] arch: unify ioremap prototypes and macro aliases Dan Williams 2015-06-11 21:19 ` Dan Williams 2015-06-17 11:14 ` Christoph Hellwig 2015-06-17 11:14 ` Christoph Hellwig 2015-06-17 17:35 ` Toshi Kani 2015-06-17 17:35 ` Toshi Kani 2015-06-11 21:19 ` [PATCH v4 2/6] cleanup IORESOURCE_CACHEABLE vs ioremap() Dan Williams 2015-06-11 21:19 ` Dan Williams 2015-06-11 21:19 ` [PATCH v4 3/6] arch/*/asm/io.h: add ioremap_cache() to all architectures Dan Williams 2015-06-11 21:19 ` Dan Williams 2015-06-17 11:27 ` Christoph Hellwig 2015-06-17 11:27 ` Christoph Hellwig 2015-06-11 21:19 ` [PATCH v4 4/6] devm: fix ioremap_cache() usage Dan Williams 2015-06-11 21:19 ` Dan Williams 2015-06-11 21:19 ` [PATCH v4 5/6] arch: introduce memremap_cache() and memremap_wt() Dan Williams 2015-06-11 21:19 ` Dan Williams 2015-06-19 21:28 ` Toshi Kani 2015-06-19 21:28 ` Toshi Kani 2015-06-11 21:19 ` [PATCH v4 6/6] arch, x86: pmem api for ensuring durability of persistent memory updates Dan Williams 2015-06-11 21:19 ` Dan Williams 2015-06-17 11:31 ` Christoph Hellwig [this message] 2015-06-17 11:31 ` Christoph Hellwig 2015-06-17 14:54 ` Dan Williams 2015-06-17 14:54 ` Dan Williams 2015-06-17 15:08 ` Andy Lutomirski 2015-06-17 15:08 ` Andy Lutomirski 2015-06-17 15:07 ` Andy Lutomirski 2015-06-17 15:07 ` Andy Lutomirski 2015-06-17 15:15 ` Thomas Gleixner 2015-06-17 15:15 ` Thomas Gleixner
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=20150617113121.GC9246@lst.de \ --to=hch@lst.de \ --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \ --cc=arnd@arndb.de \ --cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \ --cc=bp@alien8.de \ --cc=dan.j.williams@intel.com \ --cc=geert@linux-m68k.org \ --cc=hmh@hmh.eng.br \ --cc=hpa@zytor.com \ --cc=jgross@suse.com \ --cc=konrad.wilk@oracle.com \ --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \ --cc=linux-nvdimm@ml01.01.org \ --cc=luto@amacapital.net \ --cc=mcgrof@suse.com \ --cc=mingo@redhat.com \ --cc=mpe@ellerman.id.au \ --cc=paulus@samba.org \ --cc=ralf@linux-mips.org \ --cc=ross.zwisler@linux.intel.com \ --cc=stefan.bader@canonical.com \ --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \ --cc=tj@kernel.org \ --cc=toshi.kani@hp.com \ --cc=x86@kernel.org \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.