[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4FBC2A23.9080605@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 08:06:59 +0800
From: Alex Shi <alex.shi@...el.com>
To: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.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 05/23/2012 12:37 AM, Andi Kleen wrote:
> 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
Sure, functionality is fundamental.
--
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