From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751066Ab3AHFKU (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Jan 2013 00:10:20 -0500 Received: from terminus.zytor.com ([198.137.202.10]:57368 "EHLO mail.zytor.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750748Ab3AHFKT (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Jan 2013 00:10:19 -0500 Message-ID: <50EBAA27.7030506@zytor.com> Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2013 21:09:59 -0800 From: "H. Peter Anvin" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rik van Riel CC: Shaohua Li , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, mingo@redhat.com, hughd@google.com Subject: Re: [RFC]x86: clearing access bit don't flush tlb References: <20130107081213.GA21779@kernel.org> <50EAE66B.1020804@redhat.com> <50EB4CB9.9010104@zytor.com> <20130108045519.GB2459@kernel.org> <50EBA8AB.2060003@zytor.com> <50EBA9DC.9070400@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <50EBA9DC.9070400@redhat.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 01/07/2013 09:08 PM, Rik van Riel wrote: > On 01/08/2013 12:03 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote: >> On 01/07/2013 08:55 PM, Shaohua Li wrote: >>> >>> I searched a little bit, the change (doing TLB flush to clear access >>> bit) is >>> made between 2.6.7 - 2.6.8, I can't find the changelog, but I found a >>> patch: >>> http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/akpm/patches/2.6/2.6.7-rc2/2.6.7-rc2-mm2/broken-out/mm-flush-tlb-when-clearing-young.patch >>> >>> >>> The changelog declaims this is for arm/ppc/ppc64. >>> >> >> Not really. It says that those have stumbled over it already. It is >> true in general that this change will make very frequently used pages >> (which stick in the TLB) candidates for eviction. > > That is only true if the pages were to stay in the TLB for a > very very long time. Probably multiple seconds. > >> x86 would seem to be just as affected, although possibly with a >> different frequency. >> >> Do we have any actual metrics on anything here? > > I suspect that if we do need to force a TLB flush for page > reclaim purposes, it may make sense to do that TLB flush > asynchronously. For example, kswapd could kick off a TLB > flush of every CPU in the system once a second, when the > system is under pageout pressure. > > We would have to do this in a smart way, so the kswapds > from multiple nodes do not duplicate the work. > > If people want that kind of functionality, I would be > happy to cook up an RFC patch. > So it sounds like you're saying that this patch should never have been applied in the first place? -hpa