[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aa90347f-d1da-6bd7-dbf0-786f157eb370@intel.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2019 14:52:31 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, x86@...nel.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/9] x86/tlb: Privatize cpu_tlbstate
On 6/12/19 11:48 PM, Nadav Amit wrote:
> cpu_tlbstate is mostly private and only the variable is_lazy is shared.
> This causes some false-sharing when TLB flushes are performed.
Presumably, all CPUs doing TLB flushes read 'is_lazy'. Because of this,
when we write to it we have to do the cache coherency dance to get rid
of all the CPUs that might have a read-only copy.
I would have *thought* that we only do writes when we enter or exist
lazy mode. That's partially true. We do write in enter_lazy_tlb(), but
we also *unconditionally* write in switch_mm_irqs_off(). That seems
like it might be responsible for a chunk (or even a vast majority) of
the cacheline bounces.
Is there anything preventing us from turning the switch_mm_irqs_off()
write into:
if (was_lazy)
this_cpu_write(cpu_tlbstate.is_lazy, false);
?
I think this patch is probably still a good general idea, but I just
wonder if reducing the writes is a better way to reduce bounces.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists