[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4FB25B19.5020908@intel.com>
Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 21:33:13 +0800
From: Alex Shi <alex.shi@...el.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
CC: Luming Yu <luming.yu@...il.com>, Nick Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, hpa@...or.com, arnd@...db.de,
rostedt@...dmis.org, fweisbec@...il.com, jeremy@...p.org,
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, ak@...ux.intel.com, 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,
tj@...nel.org, oleg@...hat.com, axboe@...nel.dk, jmorris@...ei.org,
kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, yongjie.ren@...el.com,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, jcm@...masters.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 6/7] x86/tlb: optimizing flush_tlb_mm
On 05/15/2012 09:06 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-05-15 at 20:58 +0800, Luming Yu wrote:
>>
>>
>> Both __native_flush_tlb() and __native_flush_tlb_single(...)
>> introduced roughly 1 ns latency to tsc sampling executed in
>> stop_machine_context in two logical CPUs
>
> But you have to weight that against the cost of re-population, and
> that's the difficult bit, since we have no clue how many tlb entries are
> in use by the current cr3.
>
> It might be possible for intel to give us this information, I've asked
> for something similar for cachelines.
>
I don't know if such info exist in cpu. Maybe US engineer know more.
--
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