public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	x86@kernel.org, Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>,
	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>,
	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0 of 9] x86/smp function calls: convert x86 tlb flushes to use function calls [POST 2]
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 02:45:31 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080819004531.GI9914@elte.hu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <patchbomb.1219083817@localhost>


* Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org> wrote:

> This series:
>  - adds a simple debugfs profiling entry for cross-cpu tlb flushes
>  - converts them to using smp_call_function_mask
>  - unifies 32 and 64-bit tlb flushes
>  - converts smp_call_function to using multiple queues (using the now
>    freed vectors)
>  - allows config-time adjustment of the number of queues
>  - adds a kernel parameter to disable multi-queue in case it causes
>    problems
> 
> The main concern is whether using smp_call_function adds an 
> unacceptible performance hit to cross-cpu tlb flushes.  My limited 
> measurements show a ~35% regression in latency for a particular flush; 
> it would be interesting to try this on a wider range of hardware.  I 
> gather the effect tlb flush performance is very application specific 
> as well, but I'm not sure what benchmarks show what effects.
> 
> Trading off agains the latency of a given flush, the smp_function_call 
> mechanism allows multiple requests to be queued, and so may improve 
> throughput on a system-wide basis.
> 
> So, I'd like people to try this out and see what performance effects 
> it has.

nice stuff!

I suspect the extra cost might be worth it for two reasons: 1) we could 
optimize the cross-call implementation further 2) on systems where TLB 
flushes actually matter, the ability to overlap multiple TLB flushes to 
the same single CPU might improve workloads.

FYI, i've created a new -tip topic for your patches, tip/x86/tlbflush. 
It's based on tip/irq/sparseirq (there are a good deal of dependencies 
with that topic).

It would be nice to see some numbers on sufficiently SMP systems, using 
some mmap/munmap intense workload.

	Ingo

  parent reply	other threads:[~2008-08-19  0:46 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2008-08-18 18:23 [PATCH 0 of 9] x86/smp function calls: convert x86 tlb flushes to use function calls [POST 2] Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-08-18 18:23 ` [PATCH 1 of 9] x86: put tlb_flush_others() stats in debugfs Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-08-18 18:23 ` [PATCH 2 of 9] x86-32: use smp_call_function_mask for SMP TLB invalidations Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-08-18 18:23 ` [PATCH 3 of 9] x86-64: " Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-08-18 18:23 ` [PATCH 4 of 9] x86: make tlb_32|64 closer Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-08-18 18:23 ` [PATCH 5 of 9] x86: unify tlb.c Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-08-18 18:23 ` [PATCH 6 of 9] smp_function_call: add multiple queues for scalability Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-08-18 18:23 ` [PATCH 7 of 9] x86: add multiple smp_call_function queues Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-08-18 18:23 ` [PATCH 8 of 9] x86: make number of smp_call_function queues truely configurable Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-08-18 18:23 ` [PATCH 9 of 9] smp function calls: add kernel parameter to disable multiple queues Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-08-19  0:45 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2008-08-19  1:28   ` [PATCH 0 of 9] x86/smp function calls: convert x86 tlb flushes to use function calls [POST 2] Ingo Molnar
2008-08-19  6:18     ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-08-19  9:27       ` Ingo Molnar
2008-08-19 14:58         ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-08-19  9:45       ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-08-19 14:58         ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-08-19  5:37   ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-08-19  9:31     ` Ingo Molnar
2008-08-19  9:56       ` Nick Piggin
2008-08-19 10:20         ` Ingo Molnar
2008-08-19 11:08           ` Nick Piggin
2008-08-19 11:44             ` Ingo Molnar
2008-08-19 10:24         ` Ingo Molnar
2008-08-19 10:49           ` Nick Piggin
2008-08-19 10:31         ` Andi Kleen
2008-08-19 11:04           ` Nick Piggin
2008-08-19 11:20             ` Andi Kleen
2008-08-19  7:32   ` Andi Kleen
2008-08-19  7:44     ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-08-19  7:48       ` Andi Kleen
2008-08-19  8:04         ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge

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=20080819004531.GI9914@elte.hu \
    --to=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=andi@firstfloor.org \
    --cc=jens.axboe@oracle.com \
    --cc=jeremy@goop.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au \
    --cc=x86@kernel.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