lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [May]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v7 8/8] x86/tlb: just do tlb flush on one of siblings of SMT
>>> On 24.05.12 at 10:32, Alex Shi <alex.shi@intel.com> wrote:
> On 05/24/2012 01:09 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 2012-05-23 at 16:05 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>> On 23.05.12 at 16:15, Alex Shi <alex.shi@intel.com> wrote:
>>>> + /* doing flush on both siblings of SMT is just wasting time */
>>>> + cpumask_copy(&flush_mask, cpumask);
>>>> + if (likely(smp_num_siblings > 1)) {
>>>> + rand = jiffies;
>>>> + /* See "Numerical Recipes in C", second edition, p. 284 */
>>>> + rand = rand * 1664525L + 1013904223L;
>>>> + rand &= 0x1;
>>>> +
>>>> + for_each_cpu(cpu, &flush_mask) {
>>>> + sblmask = cpu_sibling_mask(cpu);
>>>> + if (cpumask_subset(sblmask, &flush_mask)) {
>>>> + if (rand == 0)
>>>> + cpu_clear(cpu, flush_mask);
>>>> + else
>>>> + cpu_clear(cpumask_next(cpu, sblmask),
>>>> + flush_mask);
>>>> + }
>>>> + }
>>>> + }
>>>> +
>>>
>>> There is no comment or anything else indicating that this is
>>> suitable for dual-thread CPUs only - when there are more than
>>> 2 threads per core, the intended effect won't be achieved.
>>
>> Why would that be? Won't higher thread count still share the same
>> resources just more so?
>>
>>> I'd
>>> recommend making the logic generic from the beginning, but if
>>> that doesn't seem feasible to you, at least a comment stating
>>> the limitation should be added imo.
>
>
> Sure. but just want to know how many commercial x86 CPU uses >2 SMTs?
> Write a short, quick function to do random selection in SMT is quite
> complicate considering cpumask maybe just contain random number SMT
> siblings in a core.

Which is why I wrote that a second best solution would be to
merely document the restriction in the source.

However, picking one out of more than 2 siblings shouldn't be
_that_ difficult.

>> My objection to the whole lot is that its looks mightily expensive on
>> large machines, cpumask operations aren't cheap when you've got 4k cpus
>> etc..
>>
>> Also, you very much cannot put cpumask_t on stack.
>
>
> Sure, and do you has related data for this?
>
> I just measured the cost of this function on my Romely EP(32 LCPUs) with
> cpumask_t and NR_CPUS = 32/256/512/4096, the cost are similar with
> 256/512/4096 and that increased about 20% time cost from 32.
>
> I also tried to use cpumask_var_t and alloc it in heap(use
> CPUMASK_OFFSTACK), actually, it cost same time with cpumask_t in stack.
> But, the allocation bring another big cost. So, I use cpumask_t in stack.
> The performance gain data in commit log is getting with NR_CPUS = 256.

Perhaps using a per-CPU cpumask would be the better choice here
(I can't see how preemption could validly be enabled when this
code is utilized).

Jan



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-05-24 11:21    [W:0.235 / U:0.096 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site