From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
To: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Cc: linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: Flush the TLB for a single address in a huge page
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 16:05:21 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <55B021B1.5020409@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHkRjk7=VMG63VfZdWbZqYu8FOa9M+54Mmdro661E2zt3WToog@mail.gmail.com>
On 07/22/2015 03:48 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> You are right, on x86 the tlb_single_page_flush_ceiling seems to be
> 33, so for an HPAGE_SIZE range the code does a local_flush_tlb()
> always. I would say a single page TLB flush is more efficient than a
> whole TLB flush but I'm not familiar enough with x86.
The last time I looked, the instruction to invalidate a single page is
more expensive than the instruction to flush the entire TLB. We also
don't bother doing ranged flushes _ever_ for hugetlbfs TLB
invalidations, but that was just because the work done around commit
e7b52ffd4 didn't see any benefit.
That said, I can't imagine this will hurt anything. We also have TLBs
that can mix 2M and 4k pages and I don't think we did back when we put
that code in originally.
--
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.hansen@intel.com>
To: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Cc: linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: Flush the TLB for a single address in a huge page
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 16:05:21 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <55B021B1.5020409@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHkRjk7=VMG63VfZdWbZqYu8FOa9M+54Mmdro661E2zt3WToog@mail.gmail.com>
On 07/22/2015 03:48 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> You are right, on x86 the tlb_single_page_flush_ceiling seems to be
> 33, so for an HPAGE_SIZE range the code does a local_flush_tlb()
> always. I would say a single page TLB flush is more efficient than a
> whole TLB flush but I'm not familiar enough with x86.
The last time I looked, the instruction to invalidate a single page is
more expensive than the instruction to flush the entire TLB. We also
don't bother doing ranged flushes _ever_ for hugetlbfs TLB
invalidations, but that was just because the work done around commit
e7b52ffd4 didn't see any benefit.
That said, I can't imagine this will hurt anything. We also have TLBs
that can mix 2M and 4k pages and I don't think we did back when we put
that code in originally.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-07-22 23:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-07-22 17:13 [PATCH] mm: Flush the TLB for a single address in a huge page Catalin Marinas
2015-07-22 17:13 ` Catalin Marinas
2015-07-22 21:39 ` David Rientjes
2015-07-22 21:39 ` David Rientjes
2015-07-22 22:48 ` Catalin Marinas
2015-07-22 22:48 ` Catalin Marinas
2015-07-22 23:05 ` Dave Hansen [this message]
2015-07-22 23:05 ` Dave Hansen
2015-07-23 10:49 ` Catalin Marinas
2015-07-23 10:49 ` Catalin Marinas
2015-07-23 14:13 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2015-07-23 14:13 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2015-07-23 14:41 ` Dave Hansen
2015-07-23 14:41 ` Dave Hansen
2015-07-23 15:58 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2015-07-23 15:58 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2015-07-23 16:52 ` Dave Hansen
2015-07-23 16:52 ` Dave Hansen
2015-07-23 16:16 ` Catalin Marinas
2015-07-23 16:16 ` Catalin Marinas
2015-07-23 16:55 ` Dave Hansen
2015-07-23 16:55 ` Dave Hansen
2015-07-23 17:13 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2015-07-23 17:13 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2015-07-23 16:49 ` Catalin Marinas
2015-07-23 16:49 ` Catalin Marinas
2015-07-24 7:17 ` Martin Schwidefsky
2015-07-24 7:17 ` Martin Schwidefsky
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=55B021B1.5020409@intel.com \
--to=dave.hansen@intel.com \
--cc=aarcange@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=rientjes@google.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.