Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757892Ab2F0PwZ (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Jun 2012 11:52:25 -0400 Received: from acsinet15.oracle.com ([141.146.126.227]:27495 "EHLO acsinet15.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756923Ab2F0PwW (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Jun 2012 11:52:22 -0400 Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 11:39:11 -0400 From: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk To: Dan Magenheimer Cc: Minchan Kim , Alex Shi , Seth Jennings , Greg Kroah-Hartman , devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Andrew Morton , Robert Jennings , Nitin Gupta Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] x86: add local_tlb_flush_kernel_range() Message-ID: <20120627153911.GH17154@phenom.dumpdata.com> References: <1340640878-27536-1-git-send-email-sjenning@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1340640878-27536-4-git-send-email-sjenning@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <4FEA9FDD.6030102@kernel.org> <4FEAA4AA.3000406@intel.com> <4FEAA7A1.9020307@kernel.org> <90bcc2c8-bcac-4620-b3c0-6b65f8d9174d@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <90bcc2c8-bcac-4620-b3c0-6b65f8d9174d@default> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Source-IP: ucsinet21.oracle.com [156.151.31.93] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2677 Lines: 67 On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 08:12:56AM -0700, Dan Magenheimer wrote: > > From: Minchan Kim [mailto:minchan@kernel.org] > > Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] x86: add local_tlb_flush_kernel_range() > > > > Hello, > > > > On 06/27/2012 03:14 PM, Alex Shi wrote: > > > > > On 06/27/2012 01:53 PM, Minchan Kim wrote: > > > > > >> On 06/26/2012 01:14 AM, Seth Jennings wrote: > > >> > > >>> This patch adds support for a local_tlb_flush_kernel_range() > > >>> function for the x86 arch. This function allows for CPU-local > > >>> TLB flushing, potentially using invlpg for single entry flushing, > > >>> using an arch independent function name. > > >>> > > >>> Signed-off-by: Seth Jennings > > >> > > >> > > >> Anyway, we don't matter INVLPG_BREAK_EVEN_PAGES's optimization point is 8 or something. > > > > > > > > > Different CPU type has different balance point on the invlpg replacing > > > flush all. and some CPU never get benefit from invlpg, So, it's better > > > to use different value for different CPU, not a fixed > > > INVLPG_BREAK_EVEN_PAGES. > > > > I think it could be another patch as further step and someone who are > > very familiar with architecture could do better than. > > So I hope it could be merged if it doesn't have real big problem. > > > > Thanks for the comment, Alex. > > Just my opinion, but I have to agree with Alex. Hardcoding > behavior that is VERY processor-specific is a bad idea. TLBs should > only be messed with when absolutely necessary, not for the > convenience of defending an abstraction that is nice-to-have > but, in current OS kernel code, unnecessary. At least put a big fat comment in the patch saying: "This is based on research done by Alex, where ... This needs to be redone where it is automatically figured out based on the CPUID, but ." [include what Dan just said about breakeven point] > > IIUC, zsmalloc only cares that the breakeven point is greater > than two. An arch-specific choice of (A) two page flushes > vs (B) one all-TLB flush should be all that is necessary right > now. (And, per separate discussion, even this isn't really > necessary either.) > > If zsmalloc _ever_ gets extended to support items that might > span three or more pages, a more generic TLB flush-pages-vs-flush-all > approach may be warranted and, by then, may already exist in some > future kernel. Until then, IMHO, keep it simple. Comments are simple :-) -- 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/