From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
To: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>
Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: Flush the TLB for a single address in a huge page
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 09:52:49 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <55B11BE1.3070903@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150723155801.GC23799@redhat.com>
On 07/23/2015 08:58 AM, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> You wrote the patch that uses the tlb_single_page_flush_ceiling, so if
> the above discussion would be relevant with regard to flush_tlb_page,
> are you implying that the above optimization in the kernel, should
> also be removed?
When I put that in, my goal was to bring consistency to how we handled
things without regressing anything. I was never able to measure any
nice macro-level benefits to a particular flush behavior.
We can also now just easily disable the ranged flushes if we want to, or
leave them in place for small flushes only.
> When these flush_tlb_range optimizations were introduced, it was
> measured with benchmark that they helped IIRC. If it's not true
> anymore with latest CPU I don't know but there should be at least a
> subset of those CPUs where this helps. So I doubt it should be removed
> for all CPUs out there.
I tried to reproduce the results and had a difficult time doing so.
> The tlb_single_page_flush_ceiling optimization has nothing to do with
> 2MB pages. But if that is still valid (or if it has ever been valid
> for older CPUs), why is flush_tlb_page not a valid optimization at
> least for those older CPUS? Why is it worth doing single invalidates
> on 4k pages and not on 2MB pages?
I haven't seen any solid evidence that we should do it for one and not
the other.
> It surely was helpful to do invlpg invalidated on 4k pages, up to 33
> in a row, with x86 CPUs as you wrote the code quoted above to do
> that, and it is still in the current kernel. So why are 2MB pages
> different?
They were originally different because the work that introduced 'invlpg'
didn't see a benefit from using 'invlpg' on 2M pages. I didn't
reevaluate it when I hacked on the code and just left it as it was.
It would be great if someone would go and collect some recent data on
using 'invlpg' on 2M pages!
--
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:[~2015-07-23 16:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-07-22 17:13 Catalin Marinas
2015-07-22 21:39 ` David Rientjes
2015-07-22 22:48 ` Catalin Marinas
2015-07-22 23:05 ` Dave Hansen
2015-07-23 10:49 ` Catalin Marinas
2015-07-23 14:13 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2015-07-23 14:41 ` Dave Hansen
2015-07-23 15:58 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2015-07-23 16:52 ` Dave Hansen [this message]
2015-07-23 16:16 ` Catalin Marinas
2015-07-23 16:55 ` Dave Hansen
2015-07-23 17:13 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2015-07-23 16:49 ` Catalin Marinas
2015-07-24 7:17 ` Martin Schwidefsky
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=55B11BE1.3070903@intel.com \
--to=dave.hansen@intel.com \
--cc=aarcange@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
/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