From: Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@gmail.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>
Cc: X86 ML <x86@kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bpetkov@suse.de>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
"linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC 00/10] x86 TLB flush cleanups, moving toward PCID support
Date: Mon, 8 May 2017 09:36:47 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <469C2BEE-5B6C-4351-8BC9-17796A072964@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <cover.1494160201.git.luto@kernel.org>
> On May 7, 2017, at 5:38 AM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> As I've been working on polishing my PCID code, a major problem I've
> encountered is that there are too many x86 TLB flushing code paths and
> that they have too many inconsequential differences. The result was
> that earlier versions of the PCID code were a colossal mess and very
> difficult to understand.
>
> This series goes a long way toward cleaning up the mess. With all the
> patches applied, there is a single function that contains the meat of
> the code to flush the TLB on a given CPU, and all the tlb flushing
> APIs call it for both local and remote CPUs.
>
> This series should only adversely affect the kernel in a couple of
> minor ways:
>
> - It makes smp_mb() unconditional when flushing TLBs. We used to
> use the TLB flush itself to mostly avoid smp_mb() on the initiating
> CPU.
>
> - On UP kernels, we lose the dubious optimization of inlining nerfed
> variants of all the TLB flush APIs. This bloats the kernel a tiny
> bit, although it should increase performance, since the SMP
> versions were better.
>
> Patch 10 in here is a little bit off topic. It's a cleanup that's
> also needed before PCID can go in, but it's not directly about
> TLB flushing.
>
> Thoughts?
In general I like the changes. I needed to hack Linux TLB shootdowns for
a research project just because I could not handle the code otherwise.
I ended up doing some of changes that you have done.
I just have two general comments:
- You may want to consider merging the kernel mappings invalidation
with the userspace mappings invalidations as well, since there are
still code redundancies.
- Don’t expect too much from concurrent TLB invalidations. In many
cases the IPI latency dominates the overhead from my experience.
Regards,
Nadav
--
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>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-05-08 16:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-05-07 12:38 Andy Lutomirski
2017-05-07 12:38 ` [RFC 01/10] x86/mm: Reimplement flush_tlb_page() using flush_tlb_mm_range() Andy Lutomirski
2017-05-11 17:41 ` Borislav Petkov
2017-05-12 3:35 ` Andy Lutomirski
2017-05-07 12:38 ` [RFC 02/10] x86/mm: Reduce indentation in flush_tlb_func() Andy Lutomirski
2017-05-07 12:38 ` [RFC 03/10] x86/mm: Make the batched unmap TLB flush API more generic Andy Lutomirski
2017-05-08 15:34 ` Dave Hansen
2017-05-09 13:02 ` Andy Lutomirski
2017-05-09 14:39 ` Mel Gorman
2017-05-09 17:13 ` Dave Hansen
2017-05-09 22:54 ` Andy Lutomirski
2017-05-07 12:38 ` [RFC 04/10] x86/mm: Pass flush_tlb_info to flush_tlb_others() etc Andy Lutomirski
2017-05-11 20:01 ` Nadav Amit
2017-05-12 3:41 ` Andy Lutomirski
2017-05-07 12:38 ` [RFC 05/10] x86/mm: Change the leave_mm() condition for local TLB flushes Andy Lutomirski
2017-05-07 12:38 ` [RFC 06/10] x86/mm: Refactor flush_tlb_mm_range() to merge local and remote cases Andy Lutomirski
2017-05-07 12:38 ` [RFC 07/10] x86/mm: Use new merged flush logic in arch_tlbbatch_flush() Andy Lutomirski
2017-05-07 12:38 ` [RFC 08/10] x86/mm: Remove the UP tlbflush code; always use the formerly SMP code Andy Lutomirski
2017-05-07 12:38 ` [RFC 09/10] x86/mm: Rework lazy TLB to track the actual loaded mm Andy Lutomirski
2017-05-09 20:41 ` Thomas Gleixner
2017-05-09 22:54 ` Andy Lutomirski
2017-05-10 5:57 ` Ingo Molnar
2017-05-10 8:19 ` Thomas Gleixner
2017-05-10 8:24 ` Ingo Molnar
2017-05-10 22:42 ` Andy Lutomirski
2017-05-11 7:13 ` Ingo Molnar
2017-05-12 3:36 ` Andy Lutomirski
2017-05-07 12:38 ` [RFC 10/10] x86,kvm: Teach KVM's VMX code that CR3 isn't a constant Andy Lutomirski
2017-05-07 13:00 ` [RFC 00/10] x86 TLB flush cleanups, moving toward PCID support Ingo Molnar
2017-05-07 16:05 ` Linus Torvalds
2017-05-08 16:36 ` Nadav Amit [this message]
2017-05-09 12:43 ` Andy Lutomirski
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=469C2BEE-5B6C-4351-8BC9-17796A072964@gmail.com \
--to=nadav.amit@gmail.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=bpetkov@suse.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=luto@kernel.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox