[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4FA13599.7080308@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 02 May 2012 21:24:41 +0800
From: Alex Shi <alex.shi@...el.com>
To: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>
CC: Borislav Petkov <bp@...64.org>, andi.kleen@...el.com,
tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com, jeremy@...p.org, chrisw@...s-sol.org,
akataria@...are.com, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com,
hpa@...or.com, rostedt@...dmis.org, fweisbec@...il.com,
riel@...hat.com, luto@....edu, avi@...hat.com, len.brown@...el.com,
paul.gortmaker@...driver.com, dhowells@...hat.com,
fenghua.yu@...el.com, yinghai@...nel.org, cpw@....com,
steiner@....com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
yongjie.ren@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] x86/flush_tlb: try flush_tlb_single one by one in
flush_tlb_range
On 05/02/2012 09:04 PM, Nick Piggin wrote:
> On 2 May 2012 21:38, Alex Shi <alex.shi@...el.com> wrote:
>> On 05/02/2012 05:38 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, May 02, 2012 at 05:24:09PM +0800, Alex Shi wrote:
>>>> For some of scenario, above equation can be modified as:
>>>> (512 - X) * 100ns(assumed TLB refill cost) = X * 140ns(assumed invlpg cost)
>
> It should not be that optimistic, because that equation assumes every
> unflushed entry saves a TLB refill too.
>
Yes, it is just ideal scenario to do analysis. In the code, the judgment
depends on the 'active entries' instead of the fixed TLB line number.
active entries = min(this process's page number, TLB line number)
> I think it is always a good idea to make such fundamental primitives
> cheaper though.
>
--
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