[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <52AA6CB9.60302@linaro.org>
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 10:11:05 +0800
From: Alex Shi <alex.shi@...aro.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
CC: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, H Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>,
Linux-X86 <x86@...nel.org>, Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] x86: mm: Change tlb_flushall_shift for IvyBridge
On 12/13/2013 09:02 AM, Alex Shi wrote:
>> > You have not replied to this concern of mine: if my concern is valid
>> > then that invalidates much of the current tunings.
> The benefit from pretend flush range is not unconditional, since invlpg
> also cost time. And different CPU has different invlpg/flush_all
> execution time.
TLB refill time is also different on different kind of cpu.
BTW,
A bewitching idea is till attracting me.
https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/5/23/148
Even it was sentenced to death by HPA.
https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/5/24/143
That is that just flush one of thread TLB is enough for SMT/HT, seems
TLB is still shared in core on Intel CPU. This benefit is unconditional,
and if my memory right, Kbuild testing can improve about 1~2% in average
level.
So could you like to accept some ugly quirks to do this lazy TLB flush
on known working CPU?
Forgive me if it's stupid.
--
Thanks
Alex
--
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