Re: [PATCH 2/3] x86: mm: Change tlb_flushall_shift for IvyBridge

[Alex Shi]

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
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/