Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 19 Jul 2013 10:28:48 +0200 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [RESEND][PATCH] mm: vmstats: tlb flush counters |
| |
* Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Jul 2013 09:21:00 +0200 Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > > * Dave Hansen <dave@sr71.net> wrote: > > > > > I was investigating some TLB flush scaling issues and realized > > > that we do not have any good methods for figuring out how many > > > TLB flushes we are doing. > > > > > > It would be nice to be able to do these in generic code, but the > > > arch-independent calls don't explicitly specify whether we > > > actually need to do remote flushes or not. In the end, we really > > > need to know if we actually _did_ global vs. local invalidations, > > > so that leaves us with few options other than to muck with the > > > counters from arch-specific code. > > Spose so, if you really think it's worth it. It's all downside for > uniprocessor machines. [...]
UP is slowly going extinct, but in any case these counters ought to inform us about TLB flushes even on UP systems:
> > > + NR_TLB_LOCAL_FLUSH_ALL, > > > + NR_TLB_LOCAL_FLUSH_ONE, > > > + NR_TLB_LOCAL_FLUSH_ONE_KERNEL,
While these ought to be compiled out on UP kernels:
> > > + NR_TLB_REMOTE_FLUSH, /* cpu tried to flush others' tlbs */ > > > + NR_TLB_REMOTE_FLUSH_RECEIVED,/* cpu received ipi for flush */
Right?
> > Please fix the vertical alignment of comments. > > I looked - this isn't practical. > > It would be nice to actually document these things though. We don't > *have* to squeeze the comment into the RHS.
Agreed.
Thanks,
Ingo
| |