[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4FB26312.6060105@intel.com>
Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 22:07:14 +0800
From: Alex Shi <alex.shi@...el.com>
To: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>, yongjie.ren@...el.com
CC: 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,
a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl, kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com,
viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 6/7] x86/tlb: optimizing flush_tlb_mm
On 05/15/2012 05:17 PM, Nick Piggin wrote:
> On 15 May 2012 19:15, Nick Piggin <npiggin@...il.com> wrote:
>> So this should go to linux-arch...
>>
>> On 15 May 2012 18:55, Alex Shi <alex.shi@...el.com> wrote:
>>> Not every flush_tlb_mm execution moment is really need to evacuate all
>>> TLB entries, like in munmap, just few 'invlpg' is better for whole
>>> process performance, since it leaves most of TLB entries for later
>>> accessing.
>
> Did you have microbenchmarks for this like your mprotect numbers,
> by the way? Test munmap numbers and see how that looks. Also,
> does it show up on any macro-benchmarks like specjbb?
Yongjie has tested the patchset and get some positive data on Virtual
machine.
Yongjie, could you like to share your data?
--
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