lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Dec]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: post-3.18 performance regression in TLB flushing code
On 12/17/2014 08:53 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 04:28:23PM +0000, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 2:08 AM, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> wrote:
>> So why not just this trivial patch, to make the logic be the same it
>> used to be (just using "end > 0" instead of the old "need_flush")?
>
> Looks fine to me... Dave?

First of all, this is quite observable when testing single-threaded on a
desktop. This is a mildly crusty Sandybridge CPU from 2011. I made 3
runs with a single thread: ./brk1_processes -s 30 -t 1

fb7332a9fed : 4323385
fb7332a9fed^: 4503736
fb7332a9fed+Linus's fix: 4516761

These things are also a little bit noisy, so we're well within the
margin of error with Linus's fix.

This also holds up on the large system.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-12-17 20:21    [W:0.047 / U:0.084 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site