From: Alexander Van Brunt <avanbrunt@nvidia.com>
To: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Cc: Ashish Mhetre <amhetre@nvidia.com>,
"mark.rutland@arm.com" <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
"linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org" <linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org>,
Sachin Nikam <Snikam@nvidia.com>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3] arm64: Don't flush tlb while clearing the accessed bit
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2018 20:42:03 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <BYAPR12MB27120C304F7B085A0CA36124CFA90@BYAPR12MB2712.namprd12.prod.outlook.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <BYAPR12MB271239AAF4A0B79D756850C6CFA90@BYAPR12MB2712.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>
> > > If we roll a TLB invalidation routine without the trailing DSB, what sort of
> > > performance does that get you?
> >
> > It is not as good. In some cases, it is really bad. Skipping the invalidate was
> > the most consistent and fast implementation.
> My problem with that is it's not really much different to just skipping the
> page table update entirely. Skipping the DSB is closer to what is done on
> x86, where we bound the stale entry time to the next context-switch.
Which of the three implementations is the "that" and "it" in the first sentence?
> Given that I already queued the version without the DSB, we have the choice
> to either continue with that or to revert it and go back to the previous
> behaviour. Which would you prefer?
To me, skipping the DSB is a win over doing the invalidate and the DSB because
it is faster on average.
DSBs have a big impact on the performance of other CPUs in the inner shareable
domain because of the ordering requirements. For example, we have observed
Cortex A57s stalling all CPUs in the cluster until Device accesses complete.
Would you be open to a patch on top of the DSB skipping patch that skips the
whole invalidate?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-12-06 20:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-10-29 9:25 [PATCH V3] arm64: Don't flush tlb while clearing the accessed bit Ashish Mhetre
2018-10-29 9:57 ` Jon Hunter
2018-10-29 10:55 ` Will Deacon
2018-10-29 15:13 ` Alexander Van Brunt
2018-12-03 21:20 ` Alexander Van Brunt
2018-12-06 19:18 ` Will Deacon
[not found] ` <BYAPR12MB271239AAF4A0B79D756850C6CFA90@BYAPR12MB2712.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>
2018-12-06 20:42 ` Alexander Van Brunt [this message]
2018-12-07 17:53 ` Will Deacon
2018-12-08 0:05 ` Alexander Van Brunt
[not found] ` <4bac3ba7-a005-213d-5ae4-c0e2ee589d5d@nvidia.com>
2018-10-30 11:50 ` Will Deacon
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=BYAPR12MB27120C304F7B085A0CA36124CFA90@BYAPR12MB2712.namprd12.prod.outlook.com \
--to=avanbrunt@nvidia.com \
--cc=Snikam@nvidia.com \
--cc=amhetre@nvidia.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=will.deacon@arm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).