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
|  |