All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Dave Hansen <dave@sr71.net>
To: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>
Cc: x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
	akpm@linux-foundation.org, kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com,
	ak@linux.intel.com, alex.shi@linaro.org,
	dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] x86: mm: new tunable for single vs full TLB flush
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2014 15:03:52 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <53598A48.2090909@sr71.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <53594FB3.9050505@redhat.com>

On 04/24/2014 10:53 AM, Rik van Riel wrote:
>> I do agree that it's ambiguous at best.  I'll go see if anybody cares to
>> update that bit.
> 
> I suspect that IF the TLB actually uses a 2MB entry for the
> translation, a single INVLPG will work.
> 
> However, the CPU is free to cache the translations for a 2MB
> region with a bunch of 4kB entries, if it wanted to, so in
> the end we have no guarantee that an INVLPG will actually do
> the right thing...
> 
> The same is definitely true for 1GB vs 2MB entries, with
> some CPUs being capable of parsing page tables with 1GB
> entries, but having no TLB entries for 1GB translations.

I believe we _do_ have such a guarantee.  There's another bit in the SDM
that someone pointed out to me in a footnote in "4.10.4.1":

	1. If the paging structures map the linear address using a page
	larger than 4 KBytes and there are multiple TLB entries for
	that page (see Section 4.10.2.3), the instruction invalidates
	all of them.

While that's not in the easiest-to-find place in the documents, it looks
pretty clear.

--
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: Dave Hansen <dave@sr71.net>
To: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>
Cc: x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
	akpm@linux-foundation.org, kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com,
	ak@linux.intel.com, alex.shi@linaro.org,
	dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] x86: mm: new tunable for single vs full TLB flush
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2014 15:03:52 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <53598A48.2090909@sr71.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <53594FB3.9050505@redhat.com>

On 04/24/2014 10:53 AM, Rik van Riel wrote:
>> I do agree that it's ambiguous at best.  I'll go see if anybody cares to
>> update that bit.
> 
> I suspect that IF the TLB actually uses a 2MB entry for the
> translation, a single INVLPG will work.
> 
> However, the CPU is free to cache the translations for a 2MB
> region with a bunch of 4kB entries, if it wanted to, so in
> the end we have no guarantee that an INVLPG will actually do
> the right thing...
> 
> The same is definitely true for 1GB vs 2MB entries, with
> some CPUs being capable of parsing page tables with 1GB
> entries, but having no TLB entries for 1GB translations.

I believe we _do_ have such a guarantee.  There's another bit in the SDM
that someone pointed out to me in a footnote in "4.10.4.1":

	1. If the paging structures map the linear address using a page
	larger than 4 KBytes and there are multiple TLB entries for
	that page (see Section 4.10.2.3), the instruction invalidates
	all of them.

While that's not in the easiest-to-find place in the documents, it looks
pretty clear.

  reply	other threads:[~2014-04-24 22:03 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 56+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-04-21 18:24 [PATCH 0/6] x86: rework tlb range flushing code Dave Hansen
2014-04-21 18:24 ` Dave Hansen
2014-04-21 18:24 ` [PATCH 1/6] x86: mm: clean up tlb " Dave Hansen
2014-04-21 18:24   ` Dave Hansen
2014-04-22 16:53   ` Rik van Riel
2014-04-22 16:53     ` Rik van Riel
2014-04-24  8:33   ` Mel Gorman
2014-04-24  8:33     ` Mel Gorman
2014-04-21 18:24 ` [PATCH 2/6] x86: mm: rip out complicated, out-of-date, buggy TLB flushing Dave Hansen
2014-04-21 18:24   ` Dave Hansen
2014-04-22 16:54   ` Rik van Riel
2014-04-22 16:54     ` Rik van Riel
2014-04-24  8:45   ` Mel Gorman
2014-04-24  8:45     ` Mel Gorman
2014-04-24 16:58     ` Dave Hansen
2014-04-24 16:58       ` Dave Hansen
2014-04-24 18:00       ` Mel Gorman
2014-04-24 18:00         ` Mel Gorman
2014-04-25 21:39     ` Dave Hansen
2014-04-25 21:39       ` Dave Hansen
2014-04-21 18:24 ` [PATCH 3/6] x86: mm: fix missed global TLB flush stat Dave Hansen
2014-04-21 18:24   ` Dave Hansen
2014-04-22 17:15   ` Rik van Riel
2014-04-22 17:15     ` Rik van Riel
2014-04-24  8:49   ` Mel Gorman
2014-04-24  8:49     ` Mel Gorman
2014-04-21 18:24 ` [PATCH 4/6] x86: mm: trace tlb flushes Dave Hansen
2014-04-21 18:24   ` Dave Hansen
2014-04-22 21:19   ` Rik van Riel
2014-04-22 21:19     ` Rik van Riel
2014-04-24 10:14   ` Mel Gorman
2014-04-24 10:14     ` Mel Gorman
2014-04-24 20:42     ` Dave Hansen
2014-04-24 20:42       ` Dave Hansen
2014-04-21 18:24 ` [PATCH 5/6] x86: mm: new tunable for single vs full TLB flush Dave Hansen
2014-04-21 18:24   ` Dave Hansen
2014-04-22 21:31   ` Rik van Riel
2014-04-22 21:31     ` Rik van Riel
2014-04-24 10:37   ` Mel Gorman
2014-04-24 10:37     ` Mel Gorman
2014-04-24 17:25     ` Dave Hansen
2014-04-24 17:25       ` Dave Hansen
2014-04-24 17:53       ` Rik van Riel
2014-04-24 17:53         ` Rik van Riel
2014-04-24 22:03         ` Dave Hansen [this message]
2014-04-24 22:03           ` Dave Hansen
2014-07-07 17:43     ` Dave Hansen
2014-07-07 17:43       ` Dave Hansen
2014-07-08  0:43       ` Alex Shi
2014-07-08  0:43         ` Alex Shi
2014-04-21 18:24 ` [PATCH 6/6] x86: mm: set TLB flush tunable to sane value (33) Dave Hansen
2014-04-21 18:24   ` Dave Hansen
2014-04-22 21:33   ` Rik van Riel
2014-04-22 21:33     ` Rik van Riel
2014-04-24 10:46   ` Mel Gorman
2014-04-24 10:46     ` Mel Gorman

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=53598A48.2090909@sr71.net \
    --to=dave@sr71.net \
    --cc=ak@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=alex.shi@linaro.org \
    --cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=hpa@zytor.com \
    --cc=kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=mgorman@suse.de \
    --cc=riel@redhat.com \
    --cc=x86@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.