[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1211201720520.6232@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 17:22:05 -0800 (PST)
From: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
Lee Schermerhorn <Lee.Schermerhorn@...com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/mm: Don't flush the TLB on #WP pmd fixups
On Tue, 20 Nov 2012, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> Subject: x86/mm: Don't flush the TLB on #WP pmd fixups
> From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
> Date: Tue Nov 20 14:46:34 CET 2012
>
> If we have a write protection #PF and fix up the pmd then the
> hugetlb code [the only user of pmdp_set_access_flags], in its
> do_huge_pmd_wp_page() page fault resolution function calls
> pmdp_set_access_flags() to mark the pmd permissive again,
> and flushes the TLB.
>
> This TLB flush is unnecessary: a flush on #PF is guaranteed on
> most (all?) x86 CPUs, and even in the worst-case we'll generate
> a spurious fault.
>
> So remove it.
>
This patch did not cause the 2% speedup that you reported with THP
enabled for me:
numa/core at ec05a2311c35: 136918.34 SPECjbb2005 bops
numa/core at 01aa90068b12: 128315.19 SPECjbb2005 bops (-6.3%)
numa/core at 01aa90068b12 + patch: 128184.77 SPECjbb2005 bops (-6.4%)
--
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