From: Mario Smarduch <m.smarduch@samsung.com>
To: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Cc: Marc Zyngier <Marc.Zyngier@arm.com>,
"kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu" <kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu>,
"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: tlbi va, vaa vs. val, vaal
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 13:15:57 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <54F0DE8D.3030306@samsung.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150227102435.GC3628@arm.com>
On 02/27/2015 02:24 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 12:12:32AM +0000, Mario Smarduch wrote:
>> I noticed kernel tlbflush.h use tlbi va*, vaa* variants instead of
>> val, vaal ones. Reading the manual D.5.7.2 it appears that
>> va*, vaa* versions invalidate intermediate caching of
>> translation structures.
>>
>> With stage2 enabled that may result in 20+ memory lookups
>> for a 4 level page table walk. That's assuming that intermediate
>> caching structures cache mappings from stage1 table entry to
>> host page.
>
> Yeah, Catalin and I discussed improving the kernel support for this,
> but it requires some changes to the generic mmu_gather code so that we
> can distinguish the leaf cases. I'd also like to see that done in a way
> that takes into account different granule sizes (we currently iterate
> over huge pages in 4k chunks). Last time I touched that, I entered a
> world of pain and don't plan to return there immediately :)
>
> Catalin -- feeling brave?
>
> FWIW: the new IOMMU page-table stuff I just got merged *does* make use
> of leaf-invalidation for the SMMU.
>
> Will
>
Hi Will,
thanks for the background. I'm guessing how much of PTWalk
is cached is implementation dependent. One old paper quotes upto 40%
improvement for some industry benchmarks that cache all stage1/2 PTWalk
entries.
I guess something to benchmark.
- Mario
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: m.smarduch@samsung.com (Mario Smarduch)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: tlbi va, vaa vs. val, vaal
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 13:15:57 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <54F0DE8D.3030306@samsung.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150227102435.GC3628@arm.com>
On 02/27/2015 02:24 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 12:12:32AM +0000, Mario Smarduch wrote:
>> I noticed kernel tlbflush.h use tlbi va*, vaa* variants instead of
>> val, vaal ones. Reading the manual D.5.7.2 it appears that
>> va*, vaa* versions invalidate intermediate caching of
>> translation structures.
>>
>> With stage2 enabled that may result in 20+ memory lookups
>> for a 4 level page table walk. That's assuming that intermediate
>> caching structures cache mappings from stage1 table entry to
>> host page.
>
> Yeah, Catalin and I discussed improving the kernel support for this,
> but it requires some changes to the generic mmu_gather code so that we
> can distinguish the leaf cases. I'd also like to see that done in a way
> that takes into account different granule sizes (we currently iterate
> over huge pages in 4k chunks). Last time I touched that, I entered a
> world of pain and don't plan to return there immediately :)
>
> Catalin -- feeling brave?
>
> FWIW: the new IOMMU page-table stuff I just got merged *does* make use
> of leaf-invalidation for the SMMU.
>
> Will
>
Hi Will,
thanks for the background. I'm guessing how much of PTWalk
is cached is implementation dependent. One old paper quotes upto 40%
improvement for some industry benchmarks that cache all stage1/2 PTWalk
entries.
I guess something to benchmark.
- Mario
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-02-27 21:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-02-27 0:12 tlbi va, vaa vs. val, vaal Mario Smarduch
2015-02-27 0:12 ` Mario Smarduch
2015-02-27 10:24 ` Will Deacon
2015-02-27 10:24 ` Will Deacon
2015-02-27 10:29 ` Marc Zyngier
2015-02-27 10:29 ` Marc Zyngier
2015-02-27 10:33 ` Will Deacon
2015-02-27 10:33 ` Will Deacon
2015-02-27 10:44 ` Marc Zyngier
2015-02-27 10:44 ` Marc Zyngier
2015-02-27 21:15 ` Mario Smarduch [this message]
2015-02-27 21:15 ` Mario Smarduch
2015-03-02 16:23 ` Catalin Marinas
2015-03-02 16:23 ` Catalin Marinas
2015-03-02 19:26 ` Mario Smarduch
2015-03-02 19:26 ` Mario Smarduch
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=54F0DE8D.3030306@samsung.com \
--to=m.smarduch@samsung.com \
--cc=Marc.Zyngier@arm.com \
--cc=kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=will.deacon@arm.com \
/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.