[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <D3DF6AC2-679F-4E64-B511-B1A03D1C6048@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2021 01:32:56 -0800
From: Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/6] x86: prefetch_page() vDSO call
> On Feb 25, 2021, at 12:52 AM, Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Feb 25, 2021, at 12:40 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 24, 2021 at 11:29:04PM -0800, Nadav Amit wrote:
>>> From: Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com>
>>>
>>> Just as applications can use prefetch instructions to overlap
>>> computations and memory accesses, applications may want to overlap the
>>> page-faults and compute or overlap the I/O accesses that are required
>>> for page-faults of different pages.
[
[ snip ]
>> Interesting, but given we've been removing explicit prefetch from some
>> parts of the kernel how useful is this in actual use? I'm thinking there
>> should at least be a real user and performance numbers with this before
>> merging.
>
> Can you give me a reference to the “removing explicit prefetch from some
> parts of the kernel”?
Oh. I get it - you mean we remove we remove the use of explicit memory
prefetch from the kernel code. Well, I don’t think it is really related,
but yes, performance numbers are needed.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists