[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120522163735.GB1906@tassilo.jf.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 09:37:35 -0700
From: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
To: Alex Shi <alex.shi@...el.com>
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, cl@...ux-foundation.org,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>, mgorman@...e.de,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-mm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: unnecessary tlb flush in mprotect
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 09:08:47AM +0800, Alex Shi wrote:
> On 05/21/2012 04:30 PM, Alex Shi wrote:
>
> > when mprotect just change prots of non-present pages, current mprotect
> > still do the tlb flush in check_protection().
> > but according to 4.10.2.3 Intel SDM V3A (
> > www.intel.com/Assets/ja_JP/PDF/manual/253668.pdf ) at that time, TLB has
> > no this lines for this page. So, tlb flush is just waste time. (for cr3
> > rewrite, flush all tlb, or invlpg, like a 'nop' in intel cpu)
> >
> > Do we need to add the pte_present similar check here to prevent the
> > unnecessary tlb flushing? I mean, are there real case in word, User like
> > to change page prots before assign a physical page to it?
> >
>
>
> Any comments from linux-mm emailing list?
I would be careful with TLB optimizations if it's not a clear performance
wins. A lot of these interactions are tricky and it's very easy to break
things in subtle and hard to debug ways.
-Andi
--
ak@...ux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only
--
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