lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Jan]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 11 of 11] x86: defer cr3 reload when doing pud_clear()

* Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org> wrote:

> Is there any guide about the tradeoff of when to use invlpg vs
> flushing the whole tlb? 1 page? 10? 90% of the tlb?

i made measurements some time ago and INVLPG was quite uniformly slow on
all important CPU types - on the order of 100+ cycles. It's probably
microcode. With a cr3 flush being on the order of 200-300 cycles (plus
any add-on TLB miss costs - but those are amortized quite well as long
as the pagetables are well cached - which they usually are on today's
2MB-ish L2 caches), the high cost of INVLPG rarely makes it worthwile
for anything more than a few pages.

so INVLPG makes sense for pagetable fault realated single-address
flushes, but they rarely make sense for range flushes. (and that's how
Linux uses it)

Ingo


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-01-26 01:15    [W:0.093 / U:0.200 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site