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

* Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de> wrote:

> tlb_flushall_shift == -1 Always use flush all
> tlb_flushall_shift == 1 Aggressively use individual flushes
> tlb_flushall_shift == 6 Conservatively use individual flushes
>
> IvyBridge was too aggressive using individual flushes and my patch
> makes it less aggressive.
>
> Intel's code for this currently looks like
>
> switch ((c->x86 << 8) + c->x86_model) {
> case 0x60f: /* original 65 nm celeron/pentium/core2/xeon, "Merom"/"Conroe" */
> case 0x616: /* single-core 65 nm celeron/core2solo "Merom-L"/"Conroe-L" */
> case 0x617: /* current 45 nm celeron/core2/xeon "Penryn"/"Wolfdale" */
> case 0x61d: /* six-core 45 nm xeon "Dunnington" */
> tlb_flushall_shift = -1;
> break;
> case 0x61a: /* 45 nm nehalem, "Bloomfield" */
> case 0x61e: /* 45 nm nehalem, "Lynnfield" */
> case 0x625: /* 32 nm nehalem, "Clarkdale" */
> case 0x62c: /* 32 nm nehalem, "Gulftown" */
> case 0x62e: /* 45 nm nehalem-ex, "Beckton" */
> case 0x62f: /* 32 nm Xeon E7 */
> tlb_flushall_shift = 6;
> break;
> case 0x62a: /* SandyBridge */
> case 0x62d: /* SandyBridge, "Romely-EP" */
> tlb_flushall_shift = 5;
> break;
> case 0x63a: /* Ivybridge */
> tlb_flushall_shift = 2;
> break;
> default:
> tlb_flushall_shift = 6;
> }
>
> That default shift of "6" is already conservative which is why I
> don't think we need to change anything there. AMD is slightly more
> aggressive in their choices but not enough to panic.

Lets face it, the per model tunings are most likely crap: the only
place where it significantly deviated from '6' was Ivybridge - and
there it was causing a regression.

With your patch we'll have 6 everywhere, except on SandyBridge where
it's slightly more agressive at 5 - which is probably noise.

So my argument is that we should use '6' _everywhere_ and do away with
the pretense that we do per model tunings...

Thanks,

Ingo


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-12-20 13:41    [W:0.164 / U:0.708 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site