Messages in this thread |  | | | From | Nick Piggin <> | | Subject | Re: Comments on UV tlb flushing | | Date | Tue, 29 Jul 2008 14:12:18 +1000 | |
On Tuesday 29 July 2008 10:28, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> I'm just reworking the x86 tlb code to use smp_call_function_mask, and I
> see how the UV tlb flushing hooks in. A few things occur to me:
>
> 1. There should be a CONFIG_X86_UV to select this code. tlb_uv.o is
> around 6k, which is not trivial overhead to subject every x86_64
> kernel to.
Definitely.
> 2. CONFIG_X86_UV should either depend on or select CONFIG_PARAVIRT.
> 3. You should hook into paravirt_ops to enable your tlb-flush code.
> That is, in - say - uv_bau_init() you do
> "pv_mmu_ops.flush_tlb_others = uv_flush_tlb_others". This removes
> a test/branch in the generic code. Using paravirt_ops may open
> other opportunities to put UV-optimised functions in place without
> having to modify generic code.
Really? It's not virtualized at all, although I don't like adding that
branch for such a small class of systems either.
It would possibly be better to have a new function (eg.
override_flush_tlb_others()), which returns 0 if
CONFIG_OVERRIDE_FLUSH_TLB is set, otherwise branches. And have *that*
selected by CONFIG_PARAVIRT and X86_UV.
> My understanding is that the UV hardware has some kind of
> payload-carrying IPI mechanism, which is a capability could be useful to
> express in a higher-level way in the kernel. Certainly I could imagine
> using it in a virtual environment as a way to do inter-VCPU messaging
> with less context switch overhead.
Yes, as I said in my review of that part of the UV tlb flushing, it would
be nice to have a generic mechanism to IPI with payload, which falls back
to a smp_call_function-like approach on platforms that don't have the
capability.
|  |