From: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>,
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 09:32:14 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080819073214.GD9807@one.firstfloor.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20080819004531.GI9914@elte.hu>
> nice stuff!
If only those 35% wouldn't be there ...
>
> 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.
If this is getting seriously optimized it would be useful to address
this at a slightly higher level in the generic MM. As in expose
the queue on the TLB flush interfaces.
While munmap and exit are pretty good at batching flushes vmscan.c is terrible
and tends to do all the flushing on clearing pages synchronously.
Back in 2.4 I at some point ran into a nasty livelock where
one CPU would always flush the other and the other would always
bounce some mm locks with the other and the CPUs were nearly 100%
busy just doing while swapping. Fortunately that issue disappeared
with 2.6, but I still fear a little it will come back some day.
Also with these queued invalidates right now there is duplication
of data structures with the delayed mmu gather flusher in asm-generic/tlb.h.
Both have their own queue.
If the low level flusher is queuing anyways it might be useful
to do a x86 specific implementation that combines the both and
frees the pages once the queue has been processed. Perhaps
that could amortize part of the 35%?
-Andi
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-08-19 7:30 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 ` [PATCH 0 of 9] x86/smp function calls: convert x86 tlb flushes to use function calls [POST 2] Ingo Molnar
2008-08-19 1:28 ` 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 [this message]
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=20080819073214.GD9807@one.firstfloor.org \
--to=andi@firstfloor.org \
--cc=jens.axboe@oracle.com \
--cc=jeremy@goop.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--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