[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5696E420.9040704@linux.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2016 15:56:16 -0800
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 09/13] x86/mm: Disable interrupts when flushing the TLB
using CR3
On 01/13/2016 03:51 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 3:43 PM, Dave Hansen
> <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>> On 01/13/2016 03:35 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>> Can anyone here ask a hardware or microcode person what's going on
>>> with CR3 writes possibly being faster than INVPCID? Is there some
>>> trick to it?
>>
>> I just went and measured it myself this morning. "INVPCID Type 3" (all
>> contexts no global) on a Skylake system was 15% slower than a CR3 write.
>>
>> Is that in the same ballpark from what you've observed?
>
> It's similar, except that I was comparing "INVPCID Type 1" (single
> context no globals) to a CR3 write.
Ahh, because you're using PCID... That one I saw as being ~1.85x the
number of cycles that a CR3 write was.
> Type 2, at least, is dramatically faster than the pair of CR4 writes
> it replaces.
Yeah, I saw the same thing. Type 2 was ~2.4x faster than the CR4 writes.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists