[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4FAB4CBF.3060604@intel.com>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 13:06:07 +0800
From: Alex Shi <alex.shi@...el.com>
To: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
CC: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>, mgorman@...e.de,
npiggin@...il.com, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com,
hpa@...or.com, arnd@...db.de, rostedt@...dmis.org,
fweisbec@...il.com, jeremy@...p.org, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
glommer@...hat.com, riel@...hat.com, luto@....edu, avi@...hat.com,
len.brown@...el.com, dhowells@...hat.com, fenghua.yu@...el.com,
borislav.petkov@....com, yinghai@...nel.org, cpw@....com,
steiner@....com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, penberg@...nel.org,
hughd@...gle.com, rientjes@...gle.com,
kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com, n-horiguchi@...jp.nec.com,
paul.gortmaker@...driver.com, trenn@...e.de, tj@...nel.org,
oleg@...hat.com, axboe@...nel.dk, kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com,
viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] TLB flush optimization
On 05/10/2012 07:45 AM, Andi Kleen wrote:
>> Have you tried what happens if you get rid of the funny multi-vector-ipi
>> scheme and use the generic smp_call functions?
>
> Yes we did. It's much faster on larger systems.
>
> But haven't sent the patch yet because wasn't sure if it wasn't slower
> on small systems.
Why you worried about the small system? are there some bad example there?
It should be helpful after multiple invlpg enabled. I like to take a
look this later. :)
>
> -Andi
>
>
--
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