[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <0117384c-e591-2a91-3eab-1af0b0c9f9c9@intel.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2016 08:49:47 -0800
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, x86@...nel.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC, PATCHv1 00/28] 5-level paging
On 12/09/2016 02:37 AM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> On other hand, large virtual address space would put more pressure on
> cache -- at least one more page table per process, if we make 56-bit VA
> default.
For a process only using a small amount of its address space, the
mid-level paging structure caches will be very effective since the page
walks are all very similar. You may take a cache miss on the extra
level on the *first* walk, but you only do that once per context switch.
I bet the CPU is also pretty aggressive about filling those things when
it sees a new CR3 and they've been forcibly emptied. So, you may never
even _see_ the latency from that extra miss.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists