[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <34961389-0BFD-4F30-84AF-FB2FE5B07949@vmware.com>
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2021 01:08:08 +0000
From: Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
CC: Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
"linux-csky@...r.kernel.org" <linux-csky@...r.kernel.org>,
linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
linux-s390 <linux-s390@...r.kernel.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 00/20] TLB batching consolidation and enhancements
> On Jan 30, 2021, at 4:39 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jan 30, 2021 at 4:16 PM Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com> wrote:
>> From: Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com>
>>
>> There are currently (at least?) 5 different TLB batching schemes in the
>> kernel:
>>
>> 1. Using mmu_gather (e.g., zap_page_range()).
>>
>> 2. Using {inc|dec}_tlb_flush_pending() to inform other threads on the
>> ongoing deferred TLB flush and flushing the entire range eventually
>> (e.g., change_protection_range()).
>>
>> 3. arch_{enter|leave}_lazy_mmu_mode() for sparc and powerpc (and Xen?).
>>
>> 4. Batching per-table flushes (move_ptes()).
>>
>> 5. By setting a flag on that a deferred TLB flush operation takes place,
>> flushing when (try_to_unmap_one() on x86).
>
> Are you referring to the arch_tlbbatch_add_mm/flush mechanism?
Yes.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists