[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <50EAE66B.1020804@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2013 10:14:51 -0500
From: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
To: Shaohua Li <shli@...nel.org>
CC: linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mingo@...hat.com, hpa@...or.com
Subject: Re: [RFC]x86: clearing access bit don't flush tlb
On 01/07/2013 03:12 AM, Shaohua Li wrote:
>
> We use access bit to age a page at page reclaim. When clearing pte access bit,
> we could skip tlb flush for the virtual address. The side effect is if the pte
> is in tlb and pte access bit is unset, when cpu access the page again, cpu will
> not set pte's access bit. So next time page reclaim can reclaim hot pages
> wrongly, but this doesn't corrupt anything. And according to intel manual, tlb
> has less than 1k entries, which coverers < 4M memory. In today's system,
> several giga byte memory is normal. After page reclaim clears pte access bit
> and before cpu access the page again, it's quite unlikely this page's pte is
> still in TLB. Skiping the tlb flush for this case sounds ok to me.
Agreed. In current systems, it can take a minute to write
all of memory to disk, while context switch (natural TLB
flush) times are in the dozens-of-millisecond timeframes.
> And in some workloads, TLB flush overhead is very heavy. In my simple
> multithread app with a lot of swap to several pcie SSD, removing the tlb flush
> gives about 20% ~ 30% swapout speedup.
>
> Signed-off-by: Shaohua Li <shli@...ionio.com>
Reviewed-by: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
--
All rights reversed
--
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