linuxppc-dev.lists.ozlabs.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Josh Boyer <jwboyer@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH 2/2] powerpc: 44x doesn't need G set everywhere
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 15:11:41 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20081210151141.7a5a66b2@zod.rchland.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1228939437.22413.75.camel@pasglop>

On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 07:03:57 +1100
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org> wrote:

> 
> > > We still leave G=1 on the linear mapping for now, we need to
> > > stop over-mapping RAM to be able to remove it.
> > 
> > Hm.  Over-mapping it has the nice advantage that we use as few pinned
> > TLB entries as possible.  For 440x6 cores with more than 256 MiB of
> > DRAM, you could theoretically use a single 1GiB TLB entry to map all
> > kernel DRAM.
> 
> Ok well, there are several issues here.. see below
> 
> > Do you think the trade-offs of allowing speculative accesses are worth
> > the increased TLB pressure?  Large base pages will help with that in
> > some workloads, but others are still going to be TLB constrained.
> > 
> > I know, I'm probably paranoid.  But changing things like this around
> > without some kind of benchmark data or testcase to make sure we aren't
> > making it worse gives me the heebee-geebees.
> 
> Yup, which is why I'm not changing it yet :-) My initial thinking was
> along the lines of: We can use up to 4 bolted TLB entries, that will
> cover most classic memory configurations such as 256, 512 etc.... and
> leave what doesn't fit to highmem.
> 
> However that fails miserably with 128M which is quite common.
> 
> Then I thought we could overmap and use G for things that don't quite
> fit and remove G when we know we can do an exact mapping...
> 
> Then I though .. heh, first we know there is no speculative or
> prefetched data access on 440. We also know that speculative /
> prefetched instruction access is busted and must be disabled.
> 
> Thus can't we just both overmap and not have G ?
> 
> Needs testing of course :-) I'm waiting for an answer from the chip guys
> here.

Heh.  I like it.

> G=1 has some other impacts, such as preventing write combining I think,
> re-ordering, and a few other things.

Yeah.

Overall, I'm OK with changing things as long as we can sort of prove we
aren't making it worse.

josh

      reply	other threads:[~2008-12-10 20:11 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2008-12-10  5:50 [RFC/PATCH 2/2] powerpc: 44x doesn't need G set everywhere Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2008-12-10 13:31 ` Josh Boyer
2008-12-10 20:03   ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2008-12-10 20:11     ` Josh Boyer [this message]

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=20081210151141.7a5a66b2@zod.rchland.ibm.com \
    --to=jwboyer@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
    --cc=linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.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).