[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1297651098.24560.0.camel@sli10-conroe>
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2011 10:38:18 +0800
From: Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@...el.com>
To: lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
"hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4]x86: allocate up to 32 tlb invalidate vectors
-resend
On Mon, 2011-01-17 at 10:51 +0800, Shaohua Li wrote:
> last post is lost, resent.
>
> Hi,
> In workload with heavy page reclaim, flush_tlb_page() is frequently
> used. We currently have 8 vectors for tlb flush, which is fine for small
> machines. But for big machines with a lot of CPUs, the 8 vectors are
> shared by all CPUs and we need lock to protect them. This will cause a
> lot of lock contentions. please see the patch 3 for detailed number of
> the lock contention.
> Andi Kleen suggests we can use 32 vectors for tlb flush, which should be
> fine for even 8 socket machines. Test shows this reduces lock contention
> dramatically (see patch 3 for number).
> One might argue if this will waste too many vectors and leave less
> vectors for devices. This could be a problem. But even we use 32
> vectors, we still leave 78 vectors for devices. And we now have per-cpu
> vector, vector isn't scarce any more, but I'm open if anybody has
> objections.
any comments on this patch set?
Thanks,
Shaohua
--
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