x86/asm: Add support for the CLWB instruction
Add support for the new CLWB (cache line write back) instruction. This instruction was announced in the document "Intel Architecture Instruction Set Extensions Programming Reference" with reference number 319433-022. https://software.intel.com/sites/default/files/managed/0d/53/319433-022.pdf The CLWB instruction is used to write back the contents of dirtied cache lines to memory without evicting the cache lines from the processor's cache hierarchy. This should be used in favor of clflushopt or clflush in cases where you require the cache line to be written to memory but plan to access the data again in the near future. One of the main use cases for this is with persistent memory where CLWB can be used with PCOMMIT to ensure that data has been accepted to memory and is durable on the DIMM. This function shows how to properly use CLWB/CLFLUSHOPT/CLFLUSH and PCOMMIT with appropriate fencing: void flush_and_commit_buffer(void *vaddr, unsigned int size) { void *vend = vaddr + size - 1; for (; vaddr < vend; vaddr += boot_cpu_data.x86_clflush_size) clwb(vaddr); /* Flush any possible final partial cacheline */ clwb(vend); /* * Use SFENCE to order CLWB/CLFLUSHOPT/CLFLUSH cache flushes. * (MFENCE via mb() also works) */ wmb(); /* PCOMMIT and the required SFENCE for ordering */ pcommit_sfence(); } After this function completes the data pointed to by vaddr is has been accepted to memory and will be durable if the vaddr points to persistent memory. Regarding the details of how the alternatives assembly is set up, we need one additional byte at the beginning of the CLFLUSH so that we can flip it into a CLFLUSHOPT by changing that byte into a 0x66 prefix. Two options are to either insert a 1 byte ASM_NOP1, or to add a 1 byte NOP_DS_PREFIX. Both have no functional effect with the plain CLFLUSH, but I've been told that executing a CLFLUSH + prefix should be faster than executing a CLFLUSH + NOP. We had to hard code the assembly for CLWB because, lacking the ability to assemble the CLWB instruction itself, the next closest thing is to have an xsaveopt instruction with a 0x66 prefix. Unfortunately XSAVEOPT itself is also relatively new, and isn't included by all the GCC versions that the kernel needs to support. Signed-off-by: NRoss Zwisler <ross.zwisler@linux.intel.com> Acked-by: NBorislav Petkov <bp@suse.de> Acked-by: NH. Peter Anvin <hpa@linux.intel.com> Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de> Cc: Brian Gerst <brgerst@gmail.com> Cc: Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@redhat.com> Cc: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1422377631-8986-3-git-send-email-ross.zwisler@linux.intel.comSigned-off-by: NIngo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Showing
想要评论请 注册 或 登录