From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com>, Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: x86: Is there still value in having a special tlb flush IPI vector?
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 16:16:31 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <488E534F.2030204@goop.org> (raw)
Now that normal smp_function_call is no longer an enormous bottleneck,
is there still value in having a specialised IPI vector for tlb
flushes? It seems like quite a lot of duplicate code.
The 64-bit tlb flush multiplexes the various cpus across 8 vectors to
increase scalability. If this is a big issue, then the smp function call
code can (and should) do the same thing. (Though looking at it more
closely, the way the code uses the 8 vectors is actually a less general
way of doing what smp_call_function is doing anyway.)
Thoughts?
(And uv should definitely be hooking pvops if it wants its own
flush_tlb_others; vsmp sets the precedent for a subarch-like use of pvops.)
J
next reply other threads:[~2008-07-28 23:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-07-28 23:16 Jeremy Fitzhardinge [this message]
2008-07-28 23:20 ` x86: Is there still value in having a special tlb flush IPI vector? Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-07-29 2:12 ` Andi Kleen
2008-07-29 6:29 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-07-29 12:02 ` Andi Kleen
2008-07-29 14:46 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-07-29 14:58 ` Andi Kleen
2008-07-28 23:34 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-07-29 4:30 ` Nick Piggin
2008-07-29 6:19 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-07-29 9:47 ` Nick Piggin
2008-07-29 9:54 ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-07-29 10:00 ` Nick Piggin
2008-07-29 10:04 ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-07-29 10:17 ` Nick Piggin
2008-07-29 10:23 ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-07-29 10:45 ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-07-31 16:48 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-08-01 1:32 ` Nick Piggin
2008-07-31 17:48 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-07-31 20:57 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-07-31 21:15 ` Peter Zijlstra
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=488E534F.2030204@goop.org \
--to=jeremy@goop.org \
--cc=ak@suse.de \
--cc=jens.axboe@oracle.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
/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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.