[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALCETrWmPoLWPeVqEPf5_s1PRL_RgOQ_AS6HHWdWkmTC7nQ3jQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2016 16:34:37 -0800
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>
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 Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 3:56 PM, Dave Hansen
<dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> 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.
>
I think that settles it, then:
if (static_cpu_has_safe(X86_FEATURE_PCID)) {
raw_local_irqsave();
native_write_cr3(native_read_cr3());
raw_local_irqrestore();
} else {
native_write_cr3(native_read_cr3());
}
I don't think it's worth hacking more complexity into switch_mm to
make that annoyance go away.
--Andy
Powered by blists - more mailing lists