[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <92B64D24-04DD-45A6-86A4-758CD73E0909@vmware.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2019 18:54:00 +0000
From: Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
CC: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 5/9] x86/mm/tlb: Privatize cpu_tlbstate
> On Jul 19, 2019, at 11:48 AM, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com> wrote:
>
> On 7/19/19 11:43 AM, Nadav Amit wrote:
>> Andy said that for the lazy tlb optimizations there might soon be more
>> shared state. If you prefer, I can move is_lazy outside of tlb_state, and
>> not set it in any alternative struct.
>
> I just wanted to make sure that we capture these rules:
>
> 1. If the data is only ever accessed on the "owning" CPU via
> this_cpu_*(), put it in 'tlb_state'.
> 2. If the data is read by other CPUs, put it in 'tlb_state_shared'.
>
> I actually like the idea of having two structs.
Yes, that’s exactly the idea. In the (1) case, we may even be able to mark
the struct with __thread qualifier, which IIRC would prevent memory barriers
from causing these values being reread.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists