lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Dec]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/4] Fix ebizzy performance regression due to X86 TLB range flush v2
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 05:49:25PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de> wrote:
>
> > [...]
> >
> > Because we lack data on TLB range flush distributions I think we
> > should still go with the conservative choice for the TLB flush
> > shift. The worst case is really bad here and it's painfully obvious
> > on ebizzy.
>
> So I'm obviously much in favor of this - I'd in fact suggest making
> the conservative choice on _all_ CPU models that have aggressive TLB
> range values right now, because frankly the testing used to pick those
> values does not look all that convincing to me.
>

I think the choices there are already reasonably conservative. I'd be
reluctant to support merging a patch that made a choice on all CPU models
without having access to the machines to run tests on. I don't see the
Intel people volunteering to do the necessary testing.

--
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-12-20 12:21    [W:0.079 / U:1.240 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site