[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20071219194032.GA8849@elte.hu>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 20:40:32 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc: Venki Pallipadi <venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: Voluntary leave_mm before entering ACPI C3
* H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
> Ingo Molnar wrote:
>> * Venki Pallipadi <venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Aviod TLB flush IPIs during C3 states by voluntary leave_mm() before
>>> entering C3.
>>>
>>> The performance impact of TLB flush on C3 should not be significant with
>>> respect to C3 wakeup latency. Also, CPUs tend to flush TLB in hardware
>>> while in C3 anyways.
>>>
>
> Are there any CPUs around which *don't* flush the TLB across C3? (I
> guess it's not guaranteed by the spec, though, and as TLBs grow larger
> there might be incentive to keep them online.)
i dont think it's required for C3 to even turn off any portion of the
CPU - if an interrupt arrives after the C3 sequence is initiated but
just before dirty cachelines have been flushed then the CPU can just
return without touching anything (such as the TLB) - right? So i dont
think there's any implicit guarantee of TLB flushing (nor should there
be), but in practice, a good C3 sequence would (statistically) turn off
large portions of the CPU and hence the TLB as well.
Ingo
--
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