linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: npiggin@gmail.com (Nicholas Piggin)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH 00/12] Avoid synchronous TLB invalidation for intermediate page-table entries on arm64
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2018 21:50:04 +1000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180831215004.0ae58904@roar.ozlabs.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180831104945.GI24124@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>

On Fri, 31 Aug 2018 12:49:45 +0200
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:

> On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 08:32:34PM +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
> > Oh gee, I suppose. powerpc hash is kind of interesting because it's
> > crazy, Aneesh knows that code a lot better than I do. radix modulo
> > some minor details of exact instructions is fairly like x86   
> 
> The whole TLB broadcast vs explicit IPIs is a fairly big difference in
> my book.

That's true I guess. Maybe arm64 is closer.

> Anyway, have you guys tried the explicit IPI approach? Depending on how
> IPIs are routed vs broadcasts it might save a little bus traffic. No
> point in getting all CPUs to process the TLBI when there's only a hand
> full that really need it.

It has been looked at now and again there's a lot of variables to
weigh. And things are also sized and speced to cover various
hypervisors, OSes, hash and radix, etc. This is something we need to
evaluate on radix a bit better.

> 
> OTOH, I suppose the broadcast thing has been optimized to death on the
> hardware side, so who knows..

There are some advantages of doing it in hardware. Also some of doing
IPIs though. The "problem" is actually Linux is well optimised and it
can be hard to notice much impact until you get to big systems. At
least I don't know of any problem workloads outside micro benchmarks or
stress tests.

Thanks,
Nick

  parent reply	other threads:[~2018-08-31 11:50 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-08-30 16:15 [PATCH 00/12] Avoid synchronous TLB invalidation for intermediate page-table entries on arm64 Will Deacon
2018-08-30 16:15 ` [PATCH 01/12] arm64: tlb: Use last-level invalidation in flush_tlb_kernel_range() Will Deacon
2018-08-30 16:15 ` [PATCH 02/12] arm64: tlb: Add DSB ISHST prior to TLBI in __flush_tlb_[kernel_]pgtable() Will Deacon
2018-08-30 16:15 ` [PATCH 03/12] arm64: pgtable: Implement p[mu]d_valid() and check in set_p[mu]d() Will Deacon
2018-08-30 16:15 ` [PATCH 04/12] arm64: tlb: Justify non-leaf invalidation in flush_tlb_range() Will Deacon
2018-08-30 16:15 ` [PATCH 05/12] arm64: tlbflush: Allow stride to be specified for __flush_tlb_range() Will Deacon
2018-08-30 16:15 ` [PATCH 06/12] arm64: tlb: Remove redundant !CONFIG_HAVE_RCU_TABLE_FREE code Will Deacon
2018-08-30 16:15 ` [PATCH 07/12] asm-generic/tlb: Guard with #ifdef CONFIG_MMU Will Deacon
2018-08-30 16:15 ` [PATCH 08/12] asm-generic/tlb: Track freeing of page-table directories in struct mmu_gather Will Deacon
2018-08-30 16:15 ` [PATCH 09/12] asm-generic/tlb: Track which levels of the page tables have been cleared Will Deacon
2018-08-31  1:23   ` Nicholas Piggin
2018-08-30 16:15 ` [PATCH 10/12] arm64: tlb: Adjust stride and type of TLBI according to mmu_gather Will Deacon
2018-08-30 16:15 ` [PATCH 11/12] arm64: tlb: Avoid synchronous TLBIs when freeing page tables Will Deacon
2018-08-30 16:15 ` [PATCH 12/12] arm64: tlb: Rewrite stale comment in asm/tlbflush.h Will Deacon
2018-08-30 16:39 ` [PATCH 00/12] Avoid synchronous TLB invalidation for intermediate page-table entries on arm64 Linus Torvalds
2018-08-31  1:00   ` Nicholas Piggin
2018-08-31  1:04     ` Linus Torvalds
2018-08-31  9:54       ` Will Deacon
2018-08-31 10:10         ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-08-31 10:32           ` Nicholas Piggin
2018-08-31 10:49             ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-08-31 11:12               ` Will Deacon
2018-08-31 11:20                 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-08-31 11:50               ` Nicholas Piggin [this message]
2018-09-03 12:52             ` Will Deacon
2018-08-30 17:11 ` Peter Zijlstra

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=20180831215004.0ae58904@roar.ozlabs.ibm.com \
    --to=npiggin@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).