All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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

             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.