From: Michael Neuling <mikey@neuling.org>
To: michael@ellerman.id.au
Cc: kexec@lists.infradead.org, Anton Blanchard <anton@samba.org>,
linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] powerpc,kexec: Speedup kexec hpte tear down
Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 10:43:08 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <7247.1273624988@neuling.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1273624565.5738.8.camel@concordia>
In message <1273624565.5738.8.camel@concordia> you wrote:
>
> --=-wnrJa93KBardFtse2eHB
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> On Wed, 2010-05-12 at 09:29 +1000, Michael Neuling wrote:
> >=20
> > In message <1273561463.9209.138.camel@concordia> you wrote:
> > >=20
> > > --=3D-S056dRzmrEHDBzKyyTOs
> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"UTF-8"
> > > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> > >=20
> > > On Tue, 2010-05-11 at 16:28 +1000, Michael Neuling wrote:
> > > > Currently for kexec the PTE tear down on 1TB segment systems normally
> > > > requires 3 hcalls for each PTE removal. On a machine with 32GB of
> > > > memory it can take around a minute to remove all the PTEs.
> > > >=3D20
> > > ..
> > > > - /* TODO: Use bulk call */
> > >=20
> > > ...
> > > > + /* Read in batches of 4,
> > > > + * invalidate only valid entries not in the VRMA
> > > > + * hpte_count will be a multiple of 4
> > > > + */
> > > > + for (i =3D3D 0; i < hpte_count; i +=3D3D 4) {
> > > > + lpar_rc =3D3D plpar_pte_read_4_raw(0, i, (void *)ptes);
> > > > + if (lpar_rc !=3D3D H_SUCCESS)
> > > > + continue;
> > > > + for (j =3D3D 0; j < 4; j++){
> > > > + if ((ptes[j].pteh & HPTE_V_VRMA_MASK) =3D3D=3D3
D
> > > > + HPTE_V_VRMA_MASK)
> > > > + continue;
> > > > + if (ptes[j].pteh & HPTE_V_VALID)
> > > > + plpar_pte_remove_raw(0, i + j, 0,
> > > > + &(ptes[j].pteh), &(ptes[j].ptel
));
> > > > }
> > >=20
> > > Have you tried using the bulk remove call, if none of the HPTEs are for
> > > the VRMA? Rumour was it was slower/the-same, but that may have been
> > > apocryphal.
> >=20
> > No, I didn't try it.
> >=20
> > I think the real solution is to ask FW for a new call to do it all for
> > us.
>
> Sure, you could theoretically still get a 4x speedup though by using the
> bulk remove.
We probably only do the remove on < 1% of the hptes now. So I doubt we
would get a speedup since most of the time we aren't do the remove
anymore.
Mikey
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-05-12 0:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-05-11 6:28 [PATCH 1/2] powerpc: Add hcall to read 4 ptes at a time in real mode Michael Neuling
2010-05-11 6:28 ` [PATCH 2/2] powerpc,kexec: Speedup kexec hpte tear down Michael Neuling
2010-05-11 7:04 ` Michael Ellerman
2010-05-11 23:29 ` Michael Neuling
2010-05-12 0:36 ` Michael Ellerman
2010-05-12 0:43 ` Michael Neuling [this message]
2010-05-12 1:00 ` Paul Mackerras
2010-05-12 1:06 ` Michael Neuling
2010-05-12 1:36 ` Michael Ellerman
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=7247.1273624988@neuling.org \
--to=mikey@neuling.org \
--cc=anton@samba.org \
--cc=kexec@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org \
--cc=michael@ellerman.id.au \
/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).