Messages in this thread | | | From | Nadav Amit <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] x86/mm/tlb: Revert retpoline avoidance approach | Date | Sat, 19 Mar 2022 07:28:54 +0000 |
| |
> On Mar 19, 2022, at 12:20 AM, Nadav Amit <namit@vmware.com> wrote: > > >> On Mar 18, 2022, at 9:33 AM, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com> wrote: >> >> ⚠ External Email: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender. >> >> 0day reported a regression on a microbenchmark which is intended to >> stress the TLB flushing path: >> >> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flore.kernel.org%2Fall%2F20220317090415.GE735%40xsang-OptiPlex-9020%2F&data=04%7C01%7Cnamit%40vmware.com%7C4a2c382b5ef44105474308da08fd0c7f%7Cb39138ca3cee4b4aa4d6cd83d9dd62f0%7C0%7C0%7C637832180178751497%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=TA0iATQCnfDjIZ1lG3YdhjMZjelXrVatBjBE8Hz3AfE%3D&reserved=0 >> >> It pointed at a commit from Nadav which intended to remove retpoline >> overhead in the TLB flushing path by taking the 'cond'-ition in >> on_each_cpu_cond_mask(), pre-calculating it, and incorporating it into >> 'cpumask'. That allowed the code to use a bunch of earlier direct >> calls instead of later indirect calls that need a retpoline. >> >> But, in practice, threads can go idle (and into lazy TLB mode where >> they don't need to flush their TLB) between the early and late calls. >> It works in this direction and not in the other because TLB-flushing >> threads tend to hold mmap_lock for write. Contention on that lock >> causes threads to _go_ idle right in this early/late window. >> > > Acked-by: Nadav Amit <namit@vmware.com> >
Dave,
Note that your SOB has a wrong email address (intel.cm).
I noticed only because my mail server complained about wrong email address in the recipient list…
| |