Date:	Wed, 10 Jun 2015 10:51:41 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
	Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	H Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>, Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] TLB flush multiple pages per IPI v5


* Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de> wrote:

> > I think since it is you who wants to introduce additional complexity into the 
> > x86 MM code the burden is on you to provide proof that the complexity of pfn 
> > (or struct page) tracking is worth it.
> 
> I'm taking a situation whereby IPIs are sent like crazy with interrupt storms 
> and replacing it with something that is a lot more efficient that minimises the 
> number of potential surprises. I'm stating that the benefit of PFN tracking is 
> unknowable in the general case because it depends on the workload, timing and 
> the exact CPU used so any example provided can be naked with a counter-example 
> such as a trivial sequential reader that shows no benefit. The series as posted 
> is approximately in line with current behaviour minimising the chances of 
> surprise regressions from excessive TLB flush.
> 
> You are actively blocking a measurable improvement and forcing it to be replaced 
> with something whose full impact is unquantifiable. Any regressions in this area 
> due to increased TLB misses could take several kernel releases as the issue will 
> be so difficult to detect.
> 
> I'm going to implement the approach you are forcing because there is an x86 part 
> of the patch and you are the maintainer that could indefinitely NAK it. However, 
> I'm extremely pissed about being forced to introduce these indirect 
> unpredictable costs because I know the alternative is you dragging this out for 
> weeks with no satisfactory conclusion in an argument that I cannot prove in the 
> general case.

Stop this crap.

I made a really clear and unambiguous chain of arguments:

 - I'm unconvinced about the benefits of INVLPG in general, and your patches adds
   a whole new bunch of them. I cited measurements and went out on a limb to 
   explain my position, backed with numbers and logic. It's admittedly still a 
   speculative position and I might be wrong, but I think it's well grounded 
   position that you cannot just brush aside.

 - I suggested that you split this approach into steps that first does the simpler
   approach that will give us at least 95% of the benefits, then the more complex
   one on top of it. Your false claim that I'm blocking a clear improvement is
   pure demagogy!

 - I very clearly claimed that I am more than willing to be convinced by numbers.
   It's not _that_ hard to construct a memory trashing workload with a
   TLB-efficient iteration that uses say 80% of the TLB cache, to measure the
   worst-case overhead of full flushes.

I'm really sick of this partly deceptive, partly passive-aggressive discussion 
style that seems to frequently permeate VM discussions and which made sched/numa 
such a huge PITA in the past...

And I think the numbers in the v6 series you submitted today support my position, 
so you owe me an apology I think ...

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
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