All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@kernel.org>
To: Chuyi Zhou <zhouchuyi@bytedance.com>,
	mingo@redhat.com, luto@kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org,
	paulmck@kernel.org, muchun.song@linux.dev, bp@alien8.de,
	dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, pbonzini@redhat.com,
	bigeasy@linutronix.de, clrkwllms@kernel.org, rostedt@goodmis.org,
	nadav.amit@gmail.com, vkuznets@redhat.com
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Chuyi Zhou <zhouchuyi@bytedance.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 12/14] x86/mm: Move flush_tlb_info back to the stack
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2026 16:57:14 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <87jyrlic39.ffs@fw13> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260616111127.966468-13-zhouchuyi@bytedance.com>

On Tue, Jun 16 2026 at 19:11, Chuyi Zhou wrote:

> flush_tlb_info benefits from cacheline alignment, but using
> cacheline-aligned stack storage directly can grow stack usage too much on
> configurations with large SMP_CACHE_BYTES values[1]. That problem caused

What's the link for when you can explain it in prose? Right after that
you tell that this caused 515... to be reverted.

> commit 515ab7c41306 ("x86/mm: Align TLB invalidation info") to be
> reverted. Commit 3db6d5a5ecaf ("x86/mm/tlb: Remove 'struct flush_tlb_info'
> from the stack") moved flush_tlb_info to per-CPU storage, which avoided the
>
>                    base   on-stack-aligned  on-stack-not-aligned
>                    ----       ---------      -----------
> avg (usec/op)     2.5278       2.5261         2.5508
> stddev            0.0007       0.0027         0.0023
>
> The benchmark results show that the average latency difference between
> the baseline (base) and the properly aligned stack variable
> (on-stack-aligned) is within the standard deviation (stddev). This
> indicates that the variations are caused by testing noise, and reverting
> to a stack variable with proper alignment causes no performance
> regression compared to the per-CPU implementation. The unaligned version
> (on-stack-not-aligned) shows a minor performance drop. This demonstrates
> that we can shorten the CPU-pinned/preemption-disabled section without

the ... disabled section can be shortened...


  reply	other threads:[~2026-06-26 14:57 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 33+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-06-16 11:11 [PATCH v8 00/14] Allow preemption during IPI completion waiting to improve real-time performance Chuyi Zhou
2026-06-16 11:11 ` [PATCH v8 01/14] smp: Disable preemption explicitly in __csd_lock_wait() Chuyi Zhou
2026-06-26 13:38   ` Thomas Gleixner
2026-06-16 11:11 ` [PATCH v8 02/14] smp: Enable preemption early in smp_call_function_single() Chuyi Zhou
2026-06-26 13:44   ` Thomas Gleixner
2026-06-16 11:11 ` [PATCH v8 03/14] smp: Refactor remote CPU selection in smp_call_function_any() Chuyi Zhou
2026-06-26 13:49   ` Thomas Gleixner
2026-06-16 11:11 ` [PATCH v8 04/14] smp: Use task-local IPI cpumask in smp_call_function_many_cond() Chuyi Zhou
2026-06-26 14:29   ` Thomas Gleixner
2026-06-26 15:47     ` Chuyi Zhou
2026-06-26 16:07       ` Chuyi Zhou
2026-06-26 19:07       ` Thomas Gleixner
2026-06-27  0:52         ` Chuyi Zhou
2026-06-16 11:11 ` [PATCH v8 05/14] smp: Alloc percpu csd data in smpcfd_prepare_cpu() only once Chuyi Zhou
2026-06-26 14:32   ` Thomas Gleixner
2026-06-16 11:11 ` [PATCH v8 06/14] smp: Enable preemption early in smp_call_function_many_cond() Chuyi Zhou
2026-06-26 14:40   ` Thomas Gleixner
2026-06-16 11:11 ` [PATCH v8 07/14] smp: Remove preempt_disable() from smp_call_function() Chuyi Zhou
2026-06-26 14:42   ` Thomas Gleixner
2026-06-16 11:11 ` [PATCH v8 08/14] smp: Remove preempt_disable() from on_each_cpu_cond_mask() Chuyi Zhou
2026-06-16 11:11 ` [PATCH v8 09/14] scftorture: Remove preempt_disable() in scftorture_invoke_one() Chuyi Zhou
2026-06-26 14:44   ` Thomas Gleixner
2026-06-16 11:11 ` [PATCH v8 10/14] x86/mm: Factor out flush_tlb_info initialization Chuyi Zhou
2026-06-16 13:14   ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2026-06-16 11:11 ` [PATCH v8 11/14] x86/mm: Cap flush_tlb_info alignment at 64 bytes Chuyi Zhou
2026-06-16 13:20   ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2026-06-16 15:36     ` Chuyi Zhou
2026-06-26 14:49   ` Thomas Gleixner
2026-06-16 11:11 ` [PATCH v8 12/14] x86/mm: Move flush_tlb_info back to the stack Chuyi Zhou
2026-06-26 14:57   ` Thomas Gleixner [this message]
2026-06-16 11:11 ` [PATCH v8 13/14] x86/kvm: Disable preemption in kvm_flush_tlb_multi() Chuyi Zhou
2026-06-16 13:46   ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2026-06-16 11:11 ` [PATCH v8 14/14] x86/mm: Re-enable preemption before flush_tlb_multi() Chuyi Zhou

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=87jyrlic39.ffs@fw13 \
    --to=tglx@kernel.org \
    --cc=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
    --cc=bp@alien8.de \
    --cc=clrkwllms@kernel.org \
    --cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=luto@kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=muchun.song@linux.dev \
    --cc=nadav.amit@gmail.com \
    --cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
    --cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    --cc=vkuznets@redhat.com \
    --cc=zhouchuyi@bytedance.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.