lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Jul]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Subject[PATCH 0/7] [RESEND][v4] x86: rework tlb range flushing code
    From
    Date
    x86 Maintainers,

    Could this get picked up in to the x86 tree, please? That way,
    it will get plenty of time to bake before the 3.17 merge window.

    Changes from v3:
    * Include the patch I was using to gather detailed statistics
    about the length of the ranged TLB flushes
    * Fix some documentation typos
    * Add a patch to rework the remote tlb flush code to plumb the
    tracepoints in easier, and add missing tracepoints
    * use __print_symbolic() for the human-readable tracepoint
    descriptions
    * change an int to bool in patch 1
    * Specifically call out that we removed itlb vs. dtlb logic

    Changes from v2:
    * Added a brief comment above the ceiling tunable
    * Updated the documentation to mention large pages and say
    "individual flush" instead of invlpg in most cases.

    I guess the x86 tree is probably the right place to queue this
    up.

    I've run this through a variety of systems in the LKP harness,
    as well as running it on my desktop for a few days. I'm yet to
    see an to see if any perfmance regressions (or gains) show up.

    Without the last (instrumentation/debugging) patch:

    arch/x86/include/asm/mmu_context.h | 6 ++
    arch/x86/include/asm/processor.h | 1
    arch/x86/kernel/cpu/amd.c | 7 --
    arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c | 13 ----
    arch/x86/kernel/cpu/intel.c | 26 ---------
    arch/x86/mm/tlb.c | 106 ++++++++++++++++++-------------------
    include/linux/mm_types.h | 8 ++
    7 files changed, 68 insertions(+), 99 deletions(-)
    [davehans@viggo linux.git]$

    --

    I originally went to look at this becuase I realized that newer
    CPUs were not present in the intel_tlb_flushall_shift_set() code.

    I went to try to figure out where to stick newer CPUs (do we
    consider them more like SandyBridge or IvyBridge), and was not
    able to repeat the original experiments.

    Instead, this set does:
    1. Rework the code a bit to ready it for tracepoints
    2. Add tracepoints
    3. Add a new tunable and set it to a sane value


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2014-07-01 20:21    [W:2.371 / U:25.400 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site