From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751858Ab0JTLVH (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Oct 2010 07:21:07 -0400 Received: from canuck.infradead.org ([134.117.69.58]:39801 "EHLO canuck.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751169Ab0JTLVG convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Oct 2010 07:21:06 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2]x86: spread tlb flush vector between nodes From: Peter Zijlstra To: Andi Kleen Cc: Eric Dumazet , Shaohua Li , lkml , Ingo Molnar , "hpa@zytor.com" , "Chen, Tim C" In-Reply-To: <20101020073155.GB20124@basil.fritz.box> References: <1287544023.4571.8.camel@sli10-conroe.sh.intel.com> <1287551797.2700.76.camel@edumazet-laptop> <20101020073155.GB20124@basil.fritz.box> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 13:20:52 +0200 Message-ID: <1287573652.3488.6.camel@twins> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.30.3 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2010-10-20 at 09:31 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote: > Really a lot of the per CPU scaling we have today should be per core > or per node to avoid explosion. Shouldn't that be per-cache instead of per-core?