Re: x86 TLB flushing: INVPCID vs. deferred CR3 write

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>]

* Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com> wrote:

> tl;dr: Kernels with pagetable isolation using INVPCID compile kernels
> 0.58% faster than using the deferred CR3 write.  This tends to say that
> we should leave things as-is and keep using INVPCID, but it's far from
> definitive.

Agreed, thanks for the detailed testing!

> If folks have better ideas for a test methodology, or specific workloads or 
> hardware where you want to see this tested, please speak up.

I had a look at the numbers and it all looks valid and good to me too - it's also 
the intuitive result IMHO.

I suspect there might be synthetic cache-hot workloads where the +330 cycles cost 
of INVPCID is higher than that of the extra TLB miss costs of a CR3 flush - but we 
do know that this offset is constant, while the cost of flushing all TLBs ever 
increases with the future increases of the TLB cache.

Thanks,

	Ingo

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>