From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759572Ab2EVAS0 (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 May 2012 20:18:26 -0400 Received: from mga01.intel.com ([192.55.52.88]:46061 "EHLO mga01.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759571Ab2EVASU (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 May 2012 20:18:20 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.71,315,1320652800"; d="scan'208";a="155417147" Message-ID: <4FBADAED.1010807@intel.com> Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 08:16:45 +0800 From: Alex Shi User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111229 Thunderbird/9.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alex Shi CC: tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, hpa@zytor.com, seto.hidetoshi@jp.fujitsu.com, borislav.petkov@amd.com, tony.luck@intel.com, luto@mit.edu, jbeulich@suse.com, rostedt@goodmis.org, ak@linux.intel.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, eric.dumazet@gmail.com, akinobu.mita@gmail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/tlb: replace INVALIDATE_TLB_VECTOR by CALL_FUNCTION_VECTOR References: <1337353963-8294-1-git-send-email-alex.shi@intel.com> <4FB7004B.4010806@intel.com> In-Reply-To: <4FB7004B.4010806@intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 05/19/2012 10:07 AM, Alex Shi wrote: > On 05/18/2012 11:12 PM, Alex Shi wrote: > >> There are only 32 INVALIDATE_TLB_VECTOR now in kernel. >> but modern x86 sever has more cpu number. That causes lock >> contention in TLB flushing. >> >> Now, useing generic smp call function to replace it. >> In the NHM EX machine 4P * 8cores * HT = 64 CPUs, hackbench pthread >> has 3% performance increase. >> And no clear performance changes on NHM EP(16CPUs), WSM EP(23CPU) >> and SNB EP(32CPU) machines. >> >> This patch is base on my tlb flush range support patchset. >> >> Signed-off-by: Alex Shi > > > > refresh this patch will more clean up, and cc to PeterZ. > Actually, I tried to keep flush_tlb_info into dedicated cache line, but did find clear help. Correct: I did _not_ find clear help for dedicated cache line for flush_tlb_info. > > Comments are appreciated! > Any comments for this patch?