[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4FBADAED.1010807@intel.com>
Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 08:16:45 +0800
From: Alex Shi <alex.shi@...el.com>
To: Alex Shi <alex.shi@...el.com>
CC: tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, hpa@...or.com,
seto.hidetoshi@...fujitsu.com, borislav.petkov@....com,
tony.luck@...el.com, luto@....edu, jbeulich@...e.com,
rostedt@...dmis.org, ak@...ux.intel.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
eric.dumazet@...il.com, akinobu.mita@...il.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/tlb: replace INVALIDATE_TLB_VECTOR by CALL_FUNCTION_VECTOR
On 05/19/2012 10:07 AM, Alex Shi wrote:
> On 05/18/2012 11:12 PM, Alex Shi wrote:
>
>> There are only 32 INVALIDATE_TLB_VECTOR now in kernel.
>> but modern x86 sever has more cpu number. That causes lock
>> contention in TLB flushing.
>>
>> Now, useing generic smp call function to replace it.
>> In the NHM EX machine 4P * 8cores * HT = 64 CPUs, hackbench pthread
>> has 3% performance increase.
>> And no clear performance changes on NHM EP(16CPUs), WSM EP(23CPU)
>> and SNB EP(32CPU) machines.
>>
>> This patch is base on my tlb flush range support patchset.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Alex Shi <alex.shi@...el.com>
>
>
>
> refresh this patch will more clean up, and cc to PeterZ.
> Actually, I tried to keep flush_tlb_info into dedicated cache line, but did find clear help.
Correct: I did _not_ find clear help for dedicated cache line for
flush_tlb_info.
>
> Comments are appreciated!
>
Any comments for this patch?
--
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