lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Jul]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 3/3] arm64, mm: Use IPIs for TLB invalidation.
    On 07/13/2015 11:17 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
    > On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 09:25:23PM +0100, David Daney wrote:
    >> From: David Daney <david.daney@cavium.com>
    >>
    >> Most broadcast TLB invalidations are unnecessary. So when
    >> invalidating for a given mm/vma target the only the needed CPUs via
    >> and IPI.
    >>
    >> For global TLB invalidations, also use IPI.
    >>
    >> Tested on Cavium ThunderX.
    >>
    >> This change reduces 'time make -j48' on kernel from 139s to 116s (83%
    >> as long).
    >
    > Any idea *why* you're seeing such an improvement? Some older kernels had
    > a bug where we'd try to flush a negative (i.e. huge) range by page, so it
    > would be nice to rule that out. I assume these measurements are using
    > mainline?

    I have an untested multi-part theory:

    1) Most of the invalidations in the kernel build will be for a mm that
    was only used on a single CPU (the current CPU), so IPIs are for the
    most part not needed. We win by not having to synchronize across all
    CPUs waiting for the DSB to complete. I think most of it occurs at
    process exit. Q: why do anything at process exit? The use of ASIDs
    should make TLB invalidations at process death unnecessary.

    2) By simplifying the VA range invalidations to just a single ASID based
    invalidation, we are issuing many fewer TLBI broadcasts. The overhead
    of refilling the local TLB with still needed mappings may be lower than
    the overhead of all those TLBI operations.

    >
    > Having TLBI responsible for that amount of a kernel build doesn't feel
    > right to me and doesn't line-up with the profiles I'm used to seeing.

    I don't have enough information to comment on this at the moment.

    >
    > You have 16-bit ASIDs, right?

    Correct. This means we aren't doing the rollover work very often, and
    that it is therefore not a significant source of system overhead.


    >
    > Will
    >



    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2015-07-13 22:01    [W:2.503 / U:0.252 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site