Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 25 Jan 2008 22:03:47 -0800 | From | "H. Peter Anvin" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 11 of 11] x86: defer cr3 reload when doing pud_clear() |
| |
Andi Kleen wrote: > >> so INVLPG makes sense for pagetable fault realated single-address >> flushes, but they rarely make sense for range flushes. (and that's how >> Linux uses it) > > I think it would be an interesting experiment to switch flush_tlb_range() > over to INVLPG if the length is below some threshold and see if there > are visible effects in macro benchmarks. The main problem > would be to determine the right threshold -- would likely be CPU dependent. >
It would be an interesting experiment. Odds are pretty good that the cutover is roughly linear in the TLB size.
-hpa
| |