From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from na01-bl2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bl2lp0206.outbound.protection.outlook.com [207.46.163.206]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 780971A06FF for ; Sat, 31 May 2014 08:39:47 +1000 (EST) Message-ID: <1401489574.6603.225.camel@snotra.buserror.net> Subject: Patch not showing up in patchwork (was Re: [PATCH] powerpc/booke64: wrap tlb lock and search in htw miss with FTR_SMT) From: Scott Wood To: Laurentiu Tudor Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 17:39:34 -0500 In-Reply-To: <1401461955-18007-1-git-send-email-Laurentiu.Tudor@freescale.com> References: <1401461955-18007-1-git-send-email-Laurentiu.Tudor@freescale.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Fri, 2014-05-30 at 17:59 +0300, Laurentiu Tudor wrote: > Virtualized environments expose a e6500 dual-threaded core > as two single-threaded e6500 cores. Take advantage of this > and get rid of the tlb lock and the trap-causing tlbsx in > the htw miss handler by guarding with CPU_FTR_SMT, as it's > already being done in the bolted tlb1 miss handler. > > As seen in the results below, measurements done with lmbench > random memory access latency test running under Freescale's > Embedded Hypervisor, there is a ~34% improvement. > > Memory latencies in nanoseconds - smaller is better > (WARNING - may not be correct, check graphs) > ---------------------------------------------------- > Host Mhz L1 $ L2 $ Main mem Rand mem > --------- --- ---- ---- -------- -------- > smt 1665 1.8020 13.2 83.0 1149.7 > nosmt 1665 1.8020 13.2 83.0 758.1 > > Signed-off-by: Laurentiu Tudor > Cc: Scott Wood > --- > arch/powerpc/mm/tlb_low_64e.S | 4 ++++ > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) Any idea why this patch isn't showing up on the mailing list? I see my reply in the archives, but not the original patch. -Scott