From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757623Ab2EOOHb (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 May 2012 10:07:31 -0400 Received: from mga01.intel.com ([192.55.52.88]:9776 "EHLO mga01.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754402Ab2EOOH3 (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 May 2012 10:07:29 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.71,315,1320652800"; d="scan'208";a="153191410" Message-ID: <4FB26312.6060105@intel.com> Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 22:07:14 +0800 From: Alex Shi User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111229 Thunderbird/9.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Nick Piggin , yongjie.ren@intel.com CC: tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, hpa@zytor.com, arnd@arndb.de, rostedt@goodmis.org, fweisbec@gmail.com, jeremy@goop.org, riel@redhat.com, luto@mit.edu, avi@redhat.com, len.brown@intel.com, dhowells@redhat.com, fenghua.yu@intel.com, borislav.petkov@amd.com, yinghai@kernel.org, ak@linux.intel.com, cpw@sgi.com, steiner@sgi.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, penberg@kernel.org, hughd@google.com, rientjes@google.com, kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com, n-horiguchi@ah.jp.nec.com, tj@kernel.org, oleg@redhat.com, axboe@kernel.dk, jmorris@namei.org, a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl, kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 6/7] x86/tlb: optimizing flush_tlb_mm References: <1337072138-8323-1-git-send-email-alex.shi@intel.com> <1337072138-8323-7-git-send-email-alex.shi@intel.com> In-Reply-To: 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 05/15/2012 05:17 PM, Nick Piggin wrote: > On 15 May 2012 19:15, Nick Piggin wrote: >> So this should go to linux-arch... >> >> On 15 May 2012 18:55, Alex Shi wrote: >>> Not every flush_tlb_mm execution moment is really need to evacuate all >>> TLB entries, like in munmap, just few 'invlpg' is better for whole >>> process performance, since it leaves most of TLB entries for later >>> accessing. > > Did you have microbenchmarks for this like your mprotect numbers, > by the way? Test munmap numbers and see how that looks. Also, > does it show up on any macro-benchmarks like specjbb? Yongjie has tested the patchset and get some positive data on Virtual machine. Yongjie, could you like to share your data?