[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1706211540320.2328@nanos>
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 15:40:58 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
cc: x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 11/11] x86/mm: Try to preserve old TLB entries using
PCID
On Wed, 21 Jun 2017, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > + for (asid = 0; asid < NR_DYNAMIC_ASIDS; asid++) {
> > + if (this_cpu_read(cpu_tlbstate.ctxs[asid].ctx_id) !=
> > + next->context.ctx_id)
> > + continue;
> > +
> > + *new_asid = asid;
> > + *need_flush = (this_cpu_read(cpu_tlbstate.ctxs[asid].tlb_gen) <
> > + next_tlb_gen);
> > + return;
> > + }
>
> Hmm. So this loop needs to be taken unconditionally even if the task stays
> on the same CPU. And of course the number of dynamic IDs has to be short in
> order to makes this loop suck performance wise.
... not suck ...
Powered by blists - more mailing lists