[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150713181755.GP2632@arm.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2015 19:17:55 +0100
From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
To: David Daney <ddaney.cavm@...il.com>
Cc: "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Catalin Marinas <Catalin.Marinas@....com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Robert Richter <rrichter@...ium.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
David Daney <david.daney@...ium.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] arm64, mm: Use IPIs for TLB invalidation.
On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 09:25:23PM +0100, David Daney wrote:
> From: David Daney <david.daney@...ium.com>
>
> Most broadcast TLB invalidations are unnecessary. So when
> invalidating for a given mm/vma target the only the needed CPUs via
> and IPI.
>
> For global TLB invalidations, also use IPI.
>
> Tested on Cavium ThunderX.
>
> This change reduces 'time make -j48' on kernel from 139s to 116s (83%
> as long).
Any idea *why* you're seeing such an improvement? Some older kernels had
a bug where we'd try to flush a negative (i.e. huge) range by page, so it
would be nice to rule that out. I assume these measurements are using
mainline?
Having TLBI responsible for that amount of a kernel build doesn't feel
right to me and doesn't line-up with the profiles I'm used to seeing.
You have 16-bit ASIDs, right?
Will
--
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