linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>
To: Dave Hansen <dave@sr71.net>
Cc: x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
	akpm@linux-foundation.org, kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com,
	ak@linux.intel.com, riel@redhat.com, alex.shi@linaro.org,
	dave.hansen@linux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] x86: mm: rip out complicated, out-of-date, buggy TLB flushing
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2014 19:00:30 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140424180030.GX23991@suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <535942A3.3020800@sr71.net>

On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 09:58:11AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 04/24/2014 01:45 AM, Mel Gorman wrote:
> >> +/*
> >> + * See Documentation/x86/tlb.txt for details.  We choose 33
> >> + * because it is large enough to cover the vast majority (at
> >> + * least 95%) of allocations, and is small enough that we are
> >> + * confident it will not cause too much overhead.  Each single
> >> + * flush is about 100 cycles, so this caps the maximum overhead
> >> + * at _about_ 3,000 cycles.
> >> + */
> >> +/* in units of pages */
> >> +unsigned long tlb_single_page_flush_ceiling = 1;
> >> +
> > 
> > This comment is premature. The documentation file does not exist yet and
> > 33 means nothing yet. Out of curiousity though, how confident are you
> > that a TLB flush is generally 100 cycles across different generations
> > and manufacturers of CPUs? I'm not suggesting you change it or auto-tune
> > it, am just curious.
> 
> Yeah, the comment belongs in the later patch where I set it to 33.
> 
> I looked at this on the last few generations of Intel CPUs.  "100
> cycles" was a very general statement, and not precise at all.  My laptop
> averages out to 113 cycles overall, but the flushes of 25 pages averaged
> 96 cycles/page while the flushes of 2 averaged 219/page.
> 
> Those cycles include some costs of from the instrumentation as well.
> 
> I did not test on other CPU manufacturers, but this should be pretty
> easy to reproduce.  I'm happy to help folks re-run it on other hardware.
> 
> I also believe with the modalias stuff we've got in sysfs for the CPU
> objects we can do this in the future with udev rules instead of
> hard-coding it in the kernel.
> 

You convinced me. Regardless of whether you move the comment or update
the changelog;

Acked-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>

-- 
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs

--
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>

  reply	other threads:[~2014-04-24 18:00 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-04-21 18:24 [PATCH 0/6] x86: rework tlb range flushing code Dave Hansen
2014-04-21 18:24 ` [PATCH 1/6] x86: mm: clean up tlb " Dave Hansen
2014-04-22 16:53   ` Rik van Riel
2014-04-24  8:33   ` Mel Gorman
2014-04-21 18:24 ` [PATCH 2/6] x86: mm: rip out complicated, out-of-date, buggy TLB flushing Dave Hansen
2014-04-22 16:54   ` Rik van Riel
2014-04-24  8:45   ` Mel Gorman
2014-04-24 16:58     ` Dave Hansen
2014-04-24 18:00       ` Mel Gorman [this message]
2014-04-25 21:39     ` Dave Hansen
2014-04-21 18:24 ` [PATCH 3/6] x86: mm: fix missed global TLB flush stat Dave Hansen
2014-04-22 17:15   ` Rik van Riel
2014-04-24  8:49   ` Mel Gorman
2014-04-21 18:24 ` [PATCH 4/6] x86: mm: trace tlb flushes Dave Hansen
2014-04-22 21:19   ` Rik van Riel
2014-04-24 10:14   ` Mel Gorman
2014-04-24 20:42     ` Dave Hansen
2014-04-21 18:24 ` [PATCH 5/6] x86: mm: new tunable for single vs full TLB flush Dave Hansen
2014-04-22 21:31   ` Rik van Riel
2014-04-24 10:37   ` Mel Gorman
2014-04-24 17:25     ` Dave Hansen
2014-04-24 17:53       ` Rik van Riel
2014-04-24 22:03         ` Dave Hansen
2014-07-07 17:43     ` Dave Hansen
2014-07-08  0:43       ` Alex Shi
2014-04-21 18:24 ` [PATCH 6/6] x86: mm: set TLB flush tunable to sane value (33) Dave Hansen
2014-04-22 21:33   ` Rik van Riel
2014-04-24 10:46   ` Mel Gorman

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=20140424180030.GX23991@suse.de \
    --to=mgorman@suse.de \
    --cc=ak@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=alex.shi@linaro.org \
    --cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=dave@sr71.net \
    --cc=kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=riel@redhat.com \
    --cc=x86@kernel.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).