From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wg0-f49.google.com (mail-wg0-f49.google.com [74.125.82.49]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 713816B0062 for ; Fri, 20 Dec 2013 07:20:24 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-wg0-f49.google.com with SMTP id x12so2432627wgg.16 for ; Fri, 20 Dec 2013 04:20:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ee0-x22a.google.com (mail-ee0-x22a.google.com [2a00:1450:4013:c00::22a]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id um9si3008951wjc.4.2013.12.20.04.20.23 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 20 Dec 2013 04:20:23 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ee0-f42.google.com with SMTP id e53so1022130eek.29 for ; Fri, 20 Dec 2013 04:20:23 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2013 13:20:19 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] Fix ebizzy performance regression due to X86 TLB range flush v2 Message-ID: <20131220122019.GA24479@gmail.com> References: <20131216102439.GA21624@gmail.com> <20131216125923.GS11295@suse.de> <20131216134449.GA3034@gmail.com> <20131217092124.GV11295@suse.de> <20131217110051.GA27701@gmail.com> <20131219142405.GM11295@suse.de> <20131219164925.GA29546@gmail.com> <20131220111303.GZ11295@suse.de> <20131220111818.GA23349@gmail.com> <20131220115854.GA11295@suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20131220115854.GA11295@suse.de> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Mel Gorman Cc: Linus Torvalds , Alex Shi , Thomas Gleixner , Andrew Morton , Fengguang Wu , H Peter Anvin , Linux-X86 , Linux-MM , LKML , Peter Zijlstra * Mel Gorman wrote: > tlb_flushall_shift == -1 Always use flush all > tlb_flushall_shift == 1 Aggressively use individual flushes > tlb_flushall_shift == 6 Conservatively use individual flushes > > IvyBridge was too aggressive using individual flushes and my patch > makes it less aggressive. > > Intel's code for this currently looks like > > switch ((c->x86 << 8) + c->x86_model) { > case 0x60f: /* original 65 nm celeron/pentium/core2/xeon, "Merom"/"Conroe" */ > case 0x616: /* single-core 65 nm celeron/core2solo "Merom-L"/"Conroe-L" */ > case 0x617: /* current 45 nm celeron/core2/xeon "Penryn"/"Wolfdale" */ > case 0x61d: /* six-core 45 nm xeon "Dunnington" */ > tlb_flushall_shift = -1; > break; > case 0x61a: /* 45 nm nehalem, "Bloomfield" */ > case 0x61e: /* 45 nm nehalem, "Lynnfield" */ > case 0x625: /* 32 nm nehalem, "Clarkdale" */ > case 0x62c: /* 32 nm nehalem, "Gulftown" */ > case 0x62e: /* 45 nm nehalem-ex, "Beckton" */ > case 0x62f: /* 32 nm Xeon E7 */ > tlb_flushall_shift = 6; > break; > case 0x62a: /* SandyBridge */ > case 0x62d: /* SandyBridge, "Romely-EP" */ > tlb_flushall_shift = 5; > break; > case 0x63a: /* Ivybridge */ > tlb_flushall_shift = 2; > break; > default: > tlb_flushall_shift = 6; > } > > That default shift of "6" is already conservative which is why I > don't think we need to change anything there. AMD is slightly more > aggressive in their choices but not enough to panic. Lets face it, the per model tunings are most likely crap: the only place where it significantly deviated from '6' was Ivybridge - and there it was causing a regression. With your patch we'll have 6 everywhere, except on SandyBridge where it's slightly more agressive at 5 - which is probably noise. So my argument is that we should use '6' _everywhere_ and do away with the pretense that we do per model tunings... Thanks, Ingo -- 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: email@kvack.org