lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Dec]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/3] x86: mm: Change tlb_flushall_shift for IvyBridge
On 12/13/2013 09:02 AM, Alex Shi wrote:
>> > You have not replied to this concern of mine: if my concern is valid
>> > then that invalidates much of the current tunings.
> The benefit from pretend flush range is not unconditional, since invlpg
> also cost time. And different CPU has different invlpg/flush_all
> execution time.

TLB refill time is also different on different kind of cpu.

BTW,
A bewitching idea is till attracting me.
https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/5/23/148
Even it was sentenced to death by HPA.
https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/5/24/143

That is that just flush one of thread TLB is enough for SMT/HT, seems
TLB is still shared in core on Intel CPU. This benefit is unconditional,
and if my memory right, Kbuild testing can improve about 1~2% in average
level.

So could you like to accept some ugly quirks to do this lazy TLB flush
on known working CPU?
Forgive me if it's stupid.

--
Thanks
Alex


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-12-13 05:21    [W:0.117 / U:0.724 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site