[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150621202231.GB6766@node.dhcp.inet.fi>
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2015 23:22:31 +0300
From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
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
On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 08:34:35AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 06/09/2015 05:43 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > +static char tlb_flush_target[PAGE_SIZE] __aligned(4096);
> > +static void fn_flush_tlb_one(void)
> > +{
> > + unsigned long addr = (unsigned long)&tlb_flush_target;
> > +
> > + tlb_flush_target[0]++;
> > + __flush_tlb_one(addr);
> > +}
>
> So we've got an increment of a variable in kernel memory (which is
> almost surely in the L1), then we flush that memory location, and repeat
> the increment.
BTW, Ingo, have you disabled direct mapping of kernel memory with 2M/1G
pages for the test?
I'm just thinking if there is chance that the test shooting out 1G tlb
entry. In this case we're measure wrong thing.
--
Kirill A. Shutemov
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists