[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <48AA5C19.3010204@goop.org>
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 22:37:29 -0700
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
CC: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, x86@...nel.org,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0 of 9] x86/smp function calls: convert x86 tlb flushes
to use function calls [POST 2]
Ingo Molnar wrote:
> nice stuff!
>
> I suspect the extra cost might be worth it for two reasons: 1) we could
> optimize the cross-call implementation further
Unfortunately, I think the kmalloc fix for the RCU issue is going to
hurt quite a lot.
> 2) on systems where TLB
> flushes actually matter, the ability to overlap multiple TLB flushes to
> the same single CPU might improve workloads.
>
...perhaps.
> FYI, i've created a new -tip topic for your patches, tip/x86/tlbflush.
> It's based on tip/irq/sparseirq (there are a good deal of dependencies
> with that topic).
>
Really? I didn't see much conflict when rebasing onto current tip.git.
Just an incidental context conflict in entry_arch.h.
> It would be nice to see some numbers on sufficiently SMP systems, using
> some mmap/munmap intense workload.
I've attached my test program: tlb-mash.c. Compile with "gcc -o
tlb-mash tlb-mash.c -lpthread" and run with ./tlb-mash X, where X is the
number of threads to run (2x cpus works well). It keeps running until
killed, with each thread repeatedly mprotecting a page within a shared
mapping.
J
View attachment "tlb-mash.c" of type "text/x-csrc" (1211 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists