From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com>, Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: x86: Is there still value in having a special tlb flush IPI vector?
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 16:16:31 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <488E534F.2030204@goop.org> (raw)
Now that normal smp_function_call is no longer an enormous bottleneck,
is there still value in having a specialised IPI vector for tlb
flushes? It seems like quite a lot of duplicate code.
The 64-bit tlb flush multiplexes the various cpus across 8 vectors to
increase scalability. If this is a big issue, then the smp function call
code can (and should) do the same thing. (Though looking at it more
closely, the way the code uses the 8 vectors is actually a less general
way of doing what smp_call_function is doing anyway.)
Thoughts?
(And uv should definitely be hooking pvops if it wants its own
flush_tlb_others; vsmp sets the precedent for a subarch-like use of pvops.)
J
next reply other threads:[~2008-07-28 23:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-07-28 23:16 Jeremy Fitzhardinge [this message]
2008-07-28 23:20 ` x86: Is there still value in having a special tlb flush IPI vector? Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-07-29 2:12 ` Andi Kleen
2008-07-29 6:29 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-07-29 12:02 ` Andi Kleen
2008-07-29 14:46 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-07-29 14:58 ` Andi Kleen
2008-07-28 23:34 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-07-29 4:30 ` Nick Piggin
2008-07-29 6:19 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-07-29 9:47 ` Nick Piggin
2008-07-29 9:54 ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-07-29 10:00 ` Nick Piggin
2008-07-29 10:04 ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-07-29 10:17 ` Nick Piggin
2008-07-29 10:23 ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-07-29 10:45 ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-07-31 16:48 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-08-01 1:32 ` Nick Piggin
2008-07-31 17:48 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-07-31 20:57 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-07-31 21:15 ` Peter Zijlstra
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=488E534F.2030204@goop.org \
--to=jeremy@goop.org \
--cc=ak@suse.de \
--cc=jens.axboe@oracle.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
/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