[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4FEAA7A1.9020307@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 15:26:41 +0900
From: Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
To: Alex Shi <alex.shi@...el.com>
CC: Seth Jennings <sjenning@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
Dan Magenheimer <dan.magenheimer@...cle.com>,
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Robert Jennings <rcj@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Nitin Gupta <ngupta@...are.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] x86: add local_tlb_flush_kernel_range()
Hello,
On 06/27/2012 03:14 PM, Alex Shi wrote:
> On 06/27/2012 01:53 PM, Minchan Kim wrote:
>
>> On 06/26/2012 01:14 AM, Seth Jennings wrote:
>>
>>> This patch adds support for a local_tlb_flush_kernel_range()
>>> function for the x86 arch. This function allows for CPU-local
>>> TLB flushing, potentially using invlpg for single entry flushing,
>>> using an arch independent function name.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Seth Jennings <sjenning@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
>>
>>
>> Anyway, we don't matter INVLPG_BREAK_EVEN_PAGES's optimization point is 8 or something.
>
>
> Different CPU type has different balance point on the invlpg replacing
> flush all. and some CPU never get benefit from invlpg, So, it's better
> to use different value for different CPU, not a fixed
> INVLPG_BREAK_EVEN_PAGES.
I think it could be another patch as further step and someone who are
very familiar with architecture could do better than.
So I hope it could be merged if it doesn't have real big problem.
Thanks for the comment, Alex.
--
Kind regards,
Minchan Kim
--
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