lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Oct]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH] x86/mm: Flush more aggressively in lazy TLB mode
On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 11:08 AM, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 10:50:34AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> The choices are somewhat lazy and not lazy at all.
>
> Yeah, you probably should explain those choices somewhere and what
> exactly they mean.
>
>> The degree of simplification I would get by removing it is basically
>> nil. The debugfs code itself goes away, and a
>> static_branch_unlikely() turns into a static_cpu_has(), and that's it.
>
> Sure. But it is one variable less which is not really needed by the
> widest audience.
>
>> The real reason I added it is because Chris Mason volunteered to
>> benchmark it, and I'll send it to him once it survives a bit of
>> review.
>
> Sure but it still doesn't need to be upstream. You can do all the
> measurements with a patch ontop. You don't need the permanent knob in
> debugfs either. After a year, no one would really need that anymore,
> since the majority will be PCID machines.
>
>> This is non-lazy. It's roughtly what our state was in old kernels
>> when we went lazy and then called leave_mm().
>
> non-lazy when we went lazy?!
>
> Now I'm confused :)

The function enter_lazy_tlb() is horribly named. It really just means
scheduler_doesnt_need_an_mm_anymore().

--Andy

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-10-09 20:33    [W:0.078 / U:0.220 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site