Re: [PATCH 3/3] x86: add local_tlb_flush_kernel_range()

[Alex Shi <alex.shi@intel.com>]

On 06/28/2012 02:33 AM, Seth Jennings wrote:

> On 06/27/2012 10:12 AM, Dan Magenheimer wrote:
>>> From: Minchan Kim [mailto:minchan@kernel.org]
>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] x86: add local_tlb_flush_kernel_range()
>>>
>>> On 06/27/2012 03:14 PM, Alex Shi wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 06/27/2012 01:53 PM, Minchan Kim wrote:
>>>> Different CPU type has different balance point on the invlpg replacing
>>>> flush all. and some CPU never get benefit from invlpg, So, it's better
>>>> to use different value for different CPU, not a fixed
>>>> INVLPG_BREAK_EVEN_PAGES.
>>>
>>> I think it could be another patch as further step and someone who are
>>> very familiar with architecture could do better than.
>>> So I hope it could be merged if it doesn't have real big problem.
>>>
>>> Thanks for the comment, Alex.
>>
>> Just my opinion, but I have to agree with Alex.  Hardcoding
>> behavior that is VERY processor-specific is a bad idea.  TLBs should
>> only be messed with when absolutely necessary, not for the
>> convenience of defending an abstraction that is nice-to-have
>> but, in current OS kernel code, unnecessary.
> 
> I agree that it's not optimal.  The selection based on CPUID
> is part of Alex's patchset, and I'll be glad to use that
> code when it gets integrated.
> 
> But the real discussion is are we going to:
> 1) wait until Alex's patches to be integrated, degrading
> zsmalloc in the meantime or


Peter Anvin is merging my TLB patch set into tip tree, x86/mm branch.

> 2) put in some simple temporary logic that works well (not
> best) for most cases


--
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>