Received: by 10.223.176.5 with SMTP id f5csp1882728wra; Wed, 31 Jan 2018 13:04:23 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x225MWdPKnHieWj4ywaZA93euLgi9cUswQ0TNwo/A2sRLjd9m1rqO7s4dY5MU8xxfKBftFeuF X-Received: by 10.99.113.67 with SMTP id b3mr23617254pgn.134.1517432663242; Wed, 31 Jan 2018 13:04:23 -0800 (PST) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1517432663; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=xTfvO8/1veOykQxdplATyLXsFpkjm/PclwmS0aUzK69c4SjGjYHVngP1rHC09YKImY lXxsRyusIqMoumrG66Tc5FJuuIpnAYCklJo9t6mhQ88Faq6TZzDv8G2q/VsfpXi1UOgN SdplkLhdMOHNAfkTFym6lRUIfvcANuMEDOwv4dMj01NFIuk6hQXNPtctw6IExNMBxlNx hgv3YIt4l7MyGX0Dzty9OEnpUJAaLrmCMhYmd7WyY3VNYL5mUs7zOxx0fk7tv3Y3SJMN vF3DmGFe5Cy+xNgzHC6IjmkRbpWotLfqwHmeR/e4Q8Caxt9Yzt69GGnHC/23kfR+O+2t lKFg== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:content-transfer-encoding :content-language:in-reply-to:mime-version:user-agent:date :message-id:from:cc:references:to:subject:arc-authentication-results; bh=3z3OGm9Huq2Lg/cG58EJ+xn7kAXJ9FoZF8aEJ5PKfFc=; b=dyi2rQtzaNgvflfXYb+Wzysa24Uey0e1T+lAQ8vQHN6WgVNtjRFiv/ut2UQj48QOk/ wWuGFIHHg/9EdUeExAJNd3sRLKhWYvM4azGKs+2FWzCFYq0EInam7JGAt6LpKQZfKAh1 HauyTN6rp5VBQJ99yoePx7MWrPYabs2GPNwkCbi6SiXL0aPSKCurvJf77ULU5/fPqSSZ HHdZ2HguwiVEXxPND1XGKSL/9u7SLcdSxiGciQogSOOpllndEAh7QuGfm4yVv//j3Y2g F7rSVp3m3IaEVWGrCPLkgdU/jRBg8FtRsz56rLyUBdtHUb0VXvciSZt8cXoKVstusrnn 0j/w== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id r5si1530097pgf.139.2018.01.31.13.04.07; Wed, 31 Jan 2018 13:04:23 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752768AbeAaVB0 (ORCPT + 99 others); Wed, 31 Jan 2018 16:01:26 -0500 Received: from mga11.intel.com ([192.55.52.93]:17672 "EHLO mga11.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752757AbeAaVBZ (ORCPT ); Wed, 31 Jan 2018 16:01:25 -0500 X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from orsmga004.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.38]) by fmsmga102.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 31 Jan 2018 13:01:25 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.46,441,1511856000"; d="scan'208";a="170690603" Received: from ray.jf.intel.com (HELO [10.7.201.20]) ([10.7.201.20]) by orsmga004.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 31 Jan 2018 13:01:25 -0800 Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: Align TLB invalidation info To: Nadav Amit , x86@kernel.org References: <20180131201118.1694-1-namit@vmware.com> Cc: Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra , Nadav Amit , Andy Lutomirski From: Dave Hansen Message-ID: <8bb352bc-4e1f-4e87-80e3-a8e65d618d2a@linux.intel.com> Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2018 13:01:24 -0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20180131201118.1694-1-namit@vmware.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 01/31/2018 12:11 PM, Nadav Amit wrote: > The TLB invalidation info is allocated on the stack, which might cause > it to be unaligned. Since this information may be transferred to > different cores for TLB shootdown, this might result in an additional > cache-line bouncing between the cores. > > GCC provides a way to deal with it by using > __builtin_alloca_with_align(). Use it to avoid the bouncing cache lines. It doesn't really *bounce*, though, does it? I don't see any writes on the remote side. The remote use seems entirely read-only. You also don't have to exhaustively test this, but I'd love to see at least a sanity check with a microbenchmark (or something) that, yes, this does help *something*. Maybe it makes the remote flush_tlb_func_common() run faster because it's pulling in fewer lines, or maybe you can even detect fewer misses in there.