All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
To: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Cc: Shaohua Li <shli@kernel.org>,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	akpm@linux-foundation.org, mingo@redhat.com, hughd@google.com
Subject: Re: [RFC]x86: clearing access bit don't flush tlb
Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2013 21:09:59 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <50EBAA27.7030506@zytor.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <50EBA9DC.9070400@redhat.com>

On 01/07/2013 09:08 PM, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On 01/08/2013 12:03 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> On 01/07/2013 08:55 PM, Shaohua Li wrote:
>>>
>>> I searched a little bit, the change (doing TLB flush to clear access
>>> bit) is
>>> made between 2.6.7 - 2.6.8, I can't find the changelog, but I found a
>>> patch:
>>> http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/akpm/patches/2.6/2.6.7-rc2/2.6.7-rc2-mm2/broken-out/mm-flush-tlb-when-clearing-young.patch
>>>
>>>
>>> The changelog declaims this is for arm/ppc/ppc64.
>>>
>>
>> Not really.  It says that those have stumbled over it already.  It is
>> true in general that this change will make very frequently used pages
>> (which stick in the TLB) candidates for eviction.
> 
> That is only true if the pages were to stay in the TLB for a
> very very long time.  Probably multiple seconds.
> 
>> x86 would seem to be just as affected, although possibly with a
>> different frequency.
>>
>> Do we have any actual metrics on anything here?
> 
> I suspect that if we do need to force a TLB flush for page
> reclaim purposes, it may make sense to do that TLB flush
> asynchronously. For example, kswapd could kick off a TLB
> flush of every CPU in the system once a second, when the
> system is under pageout pressure.
> 
> We would have to do this in a smart way, so the kswapds
> from multiple nodes do not duplicate the work.
> 
> If people want that kind of functionality, I would be
> happy to cook up an RFC patch.
> 

So it sounds like you're saying that this patch should never have been
applied in the first place?

	-hpa

--
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>

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
To: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Cc: Shaohua Li <shli@kernel.org>,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	akpm@linux-foundation.org, mingo@redhat.com, hughd@google.com
Subject: Re: [RFC]x86: clearing access bit don't flush tlb
Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2013 21:09:59 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <50EBAA27.7030506@zytor.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <50EBA9DC.9070400@redhat.com>

On 01/07/2013 09:08 PM, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On 01/08/2013 12:03 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> On 01/07/2013 08:55 PM, Shaohua Li wrote:
>>>
>>> I searched a little bit, the change (doing TLB flush to clear access
>>> bit) is
>>> made between 2.6.7 - 2.6.8, I can't find the changelog, but I found a
>>> patch:
>>> http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/akpm/patches/2.6/2.6.7-rc2/2.6.7-rc2-mm2/broken-out/mm-flush-tlb-when-clearing-young.patch
>>>
>>>
>>> The changelog declaims this is for arm/ppc/ppc64.
>>>
>>
>> Not really.  It says that those have stumbled over it already.  It is
>> true in general that this change will make very frequently used pages
>> (which stick in the TLB) candidates for eviction.
> 
> That is only true if the pages were to stay in the TLB for a
> very very long time.  Probably multiple seconds.
> 
>> x86 would seem to be just as affected, although possibly with a
>> different frequency.
>>
>> Do we have any actual metrics on anything here?
> 
> I suspect that if we do need to force a TLB flush for page
> reclaim purposes, it may make sense to do that TLB flush
> asynchronously. For example, kswapd could kick off a TLB
> flush of every CPU in the system once a second, when the
> system is under pageout pressure.
> 
> We would have to do this in a smart way, so the kswapds
> from multiple nodes do not duplicate the work.
> 
> If people want that kind of functionality, I would be
> happy to cook up an RFC patch.
> 

So it sounds like you're saying that this patch should never have been
applied in the first place?

	-hpa


  reply	other threads:[~2013-01-08  5:10 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2013-01-07  8:12 [RFC]x86: clearing access bit don't flush tlb Shaohua Li
2013-01-07  8:12 ` Shaohua Li
2013-01-07 15:14 ` Rik van Riel
2013-01-07 15:14   ` Rik van Riel
2013-01-07 22:31   ` H. Peter Anvin
2013-01-07 22:31     ` H. Peter Anvin
2013-01-08  4:55     ` Shaohua Li
2013-01-08  4:55       ` Shaohua Li
2013-01-08  5:03       ` H. Peter Anvin
2013-01-08  5:03         ` H. Peter Anvin
2013-01-08  5:08         ` Rik van Riel
2013-01-08  5:08           ` Rik van Riel
2013-01-08  5:09           ` H. Peter Anvin [this message]
2013-01-08  5:09             ` H. Peter Anvin
2013-01-08  7:03             ` Rik van Riel
2013-01-08  7:03               ` Rik van Riel
2013-01-15  1:41               ` Shaohua Li
2013-01-15  1:41                 ` Shaohua Li
2013-01-08  3:14 ` Simon Jeons
2013-01-08  3:14   ` Simon Jeons

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=50EBAA27.7030506@zytor.com \
    --to=hpa@zytor.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=hughd@google.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=riel@redhat.com \
    --cc=shli@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 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.