Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751175AbWEJCHp (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 May 2006 22:07:45 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751194AbWEJCHo (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 May 2006 22:07:44 -0400 Received: from mga02.intel.com ([134.134.136.20]:52338 "EHLO orsmga101-1.jf.intel.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751175AbWEJCHo (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 May 2006 22:07:44 -0400 Message-Id: <4t16i2$10ctb8@orsmga001.jf.intel.com> X-IronPort-AV: i="4.05,107,1146466800"; d="scan'208"; a="33977704:sNHT15322993" From: "Chen, Kenneth W" To: "'Nick Piggin'" , "Brian Twichell" Cc: "Hugh Dickins" , "Dave McCracken" , "Linux Memory Management" , "Linux Kernel" Subject: RE: [PATCH 0/2][RFC] New version of shared page tables Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 19:07:43 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.6353 Thread-Index: AcZzGzqzYNCTkvUYSaCX4LAivs9MEQAuKwLA In-Reply-To: <44600F9B.1060207@yahoo.com.au> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1715 Lines: 33 Nick Piggin wrote on Monday, May 08, 2006 8:42 PM > Brian Twichell wrote: > > In the case of x86-64, if pagetable sharing for small pages was > > eliminated, we'd lose more than the 27-33% throughput improvement > > observed when the bufferpools are in small pages. We'd also lose a > > significant chunk of the 3% improvement observed when the bufferpools > > are in hugepages. This occurs because there is still small page > > pagetable sharing being achieved, minimally for database text, when > > the bufferpools are in hugepages. The performance counters indicated > > that ITLB and DTLB page walks were reduced by 28% and 10%, > > respectively, in the x86-64/hugepage case. > > > Aside, can you just enlighten me as to how TLB misses are improved on > x86-64? As far as I knew, it doesn't have ASIDs so I wouldn't have thought > it could share TLBs anyway... > But I'm not up to scratch with modern implementations. Allow me to jump in if I may: The number of TLB misses did not change that much (both i-side and d-side and is expected). What changed is the penalty of TLB misses are reduced: i.e., number of page table walk performed by the hardware are reduced. This is due to specialized buffering of information that reduces the need to perform page walks. With page table sharing, the overall size of page tables are reduced, in turn, it has a better hit rate on the buffered items and it helps to mitigate page walks upon a TLB miss. - Ken - 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/