[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2008 20:09:49 +0200
From: Avi Kivity <avi@...ranet.com>
To: Jack Steiner <steiner@....com>
CC: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@...ranet.com>,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, Robin Holt <holt@....com>,
Izik Eidus <izike@...ranet.com>,
kvm-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
general@...ts.openfabrics.org,
Steve Wise <swise@...ngridcomputing.com>,
Roland Dreier <rdreier@...co.com>,
Kanoj Sarcar <kanojsarcar@...oo.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
daniel.blueman@...drics.com, Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mmu notifiers #v8
Jack Steiner wrote:
> The range invalidates have a performance advantage for the GRU. TLB invalidates
> on the GRU are relatively slow (usec) and interfere somewhat with the performance
> of other active GRU instructions. Invalidating a large chunk of addresses with
> a single GRU TLBINVAL operation is must faster than issuing a stream of single
> page TLBINVALs.
>
> I expect this performance advantage will also apply to other users of mmuops.
>
In theory this would apply to kvm as well (coalesce tlb flush IPIs,
lookup shadow page table once), but is it really a fast path? What
triggers range operations for your use cases?
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists