[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20241109003727.3958374-4-riel@surriel.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2024 19:27:50 -0500
From: Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com,
luto@...nel.org,
peterz@...radead.org,
tglx@...utronix.de,
mingo@...hat.com,
bp@...en8.de,
x86@...nel.org,
kernel-team@...a.com,
hpa@...or.com,
Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>
Subject: [PATCH 3/3] x86,tlb: put cpumask_test_cpu in prev == next under CONFIG_DEBUG_VM
On a web server workload, the cpumask_test_cpu inside the
WARN_ON_ONCE in the prev == next branch takes about 17% of
all the CPU time of switch_mm_irqs_off.
On a large fleet, this WARN_ON_ONCE has not fired in at least
a month, possibly never.
Move this test under CONFIG_DEBUG_VM so it does not get compiled
in production kernels.
Signed-off-by: Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>
---
arch/x86/mm/tlb.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/tlb.c b/arch/x86/mm/tlb.c
index 9d0d34576928..1aac4fa90d3d 100644
--- a/arch/x86/mm/tlb.c
+++ b/arch/x86/mm/tlb.c
@@ -568,7 +568,7 @@ void switch_mm_irqs_off(struct mm_struct *unused, struct mm_struct *next,
* mm_cpumask. The TLB shootdown code can figure out from
* cpu_tlbstate_shared.is_lazy whether or not to send an IPI.
*/
- if (WARN_ON_ONCE(prev != &init_mm &&
+ if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_DEBUG_VM) && WARN_ON_ONCE(prev != &init_mm &&
!cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, mm_cpumask(next))))
cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, mm_cpumask(next));
--
2.45.2
Powered by blists - more mailing lists