[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <960293705.209651220367565443.JavaMail.osg@osgjas01.cns.ufl.edu>
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2008 10:59:25 -0400 (EDT)
From: "CHADHA,VINEET" <vineet@....edu>
To: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
"CHADHA,VINEET" <vineet@....edu>
Cc: nickpiggin@...oo.com.au, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: TLB evaluation for Linux
On Tue Sep 02 09:43:53 EDT 2008, Arjan van de Ven
<arjan@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Sep 2008 00:12:03 -0400 (EDT)
> "CHADHA,VINEET" <vineet@....edu> wrote:
>
> note that linux only does an ipi to processors that actually are
> currently running a thread of the same program (or a kernel
> thread).
> Old versions didn't do this (they also IPI'd idle processors),
> but
> on modern cpus and modern kernels that's not supposed to happen
> anymore
> (the C-states that flush the tlb anyway now do the kernel side
> bookkeeping as well to avoid the wakeup+useless flush)
Interesting to know about it.
> one of the problems is that invlpg is rather expensive; in
> long-ago
> experiments the threshold was like around a handful of pages
> already.
> At that point.. all the bookkeeping isn't likely to be a win.
> Esp since a tlb refill on x86 is quite cheap.
Yeah that is possible. Do you have link to any published work ? It
would be still interesting to characterize and compare behavior
for new workloads scenarios such as virtual machines.
--
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