Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932294AbbFIWcP (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Jun 2015 18:32:15 -0400 Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:35380 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752039AbbFIWcK (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Jun 2015 18:32:10 -0400 Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2015 23:32:03 +0100 From: Mel Gorman To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Dave Hansen , Ingo Molnar , Andrew Morton , Rik van Riel , Hugh Dickins , Minchan Kim , Andi Kleen , H Peter Anvin , Linux-MM , LKML , Peter Zijlstra , Thomas Gleixner Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] TLB flush multiple pages per IPI v5 Message-ID: <20150609223203.GW26425@suse.de> References: <1433767854-24408-1-git-send-email-mgorman@suse.de> <20150608174551.GA27558@gmail.com> <20150609084739.GQ26425@suse.de> <20150609103231.GA11026@gmail.com> <20150609112055.GS26425@suse.de> <20150609124328.GA23066@gmail.com> <5577078B.2000503@intel.com> <55771909.2020005@intel.com> <55775749.3090004@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2127 Lines: 46 On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 02:54:01PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 2:14 PM, Dave Hansen wrote: > > > > The 0 cycle TLB miss was also interesting. It goes back up to something > > reasonable if I put the mb()/mfence's back. > > So I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Intel does really well > on TLB fills. > > The reason is partly historical, with Win95 doing a ton of TLB > invalidation (I think every single GDI call ended up invalidating the > TLB, so under some important Windows benchmarks of the time, you > literally had a TLB flush every 10k instructions!). > > But partly it is because people are wrong in thinking that TLB fills > have to be slow. There's a lot of complete garbage RISC machines where > the TLB fill took forever, because in the name of simplicity it would > stop the pipeline and often be done in SW. > > The zero-cycle TLB fill is obviously a bit optimistic, but at the same > time it's not completely insane. TLB fills can be prefetched, and the > table walker can hit the cache, if you do them right. And Intel mostly > does. > > So the normal full (non-global) TLB fill really is fairly cheap. It's > been optimized for, and the TLB gets re-filled fairly efficiently. I > suspect that it's really the case that doing more than just a couple > of single-tlb flushes is a complete waste of time: the flushing takes > longer than re-filling the TLB well. > I expect I'll do another revision of the series after 4.2-rc1 as it's way too close to 4.1's release. When that happens, I'll drop patch 4 and leave just the full non-global flush patch. In the event there is an architecture that really cares about the refill cost or we find that there is a corner case where the TLB refill hurts then patch 4 will be in the mail archives to consider for rebase and testing. -- Mel Gorman SUSE Labs -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/