| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2008 08:31:28 +0200 From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org> To: "CHADHA,VINEET" <vineet@....edu> Cc: nickpiggin@...oo.com.au, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: TLB evaluation for Linux "CHADHA,VINEET" <vineet@....edu> writes: > Hi, > > I have been working to evaluate TLB performance for Linux O/S and > virtualized workloads(such as Xen) in a Full system > simulator(e.g. simics). While my evaluation is in nascent stage, I do > notice that most of the IPIs in multi-core environments cause complete > TLB Flush. > > I want to evaluate cost of TLB shootdown including re-population > vs. each entry shootdown (invlpg). While a similar study has been done > in other kernels (e.g. L4 kernel), I am not aware if it has been done > for Linux O/S. > > Are there hooks or patches to test or evaluate TLB > performance. Specifically, I would like to know where to make changes > in Linux kernel to support each entry shootdown. Linux doesn't use a threshold to distingush between range flush and full flush in certain situations, but always does the full flush. That is something that might be possible to be improved, but it was so far always unclear how much it helps (it depends on the particular TLB size, cost of TLB refill etc.) -Andi -- ak@...ux.intel.com -- 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