Re: [PATCH v4 3/7] x86/flush_tlb: try flush_tlb_single one by onein flush_tlb_range

From: Rob Landley
Date: Thu May 10 2012 - 17:42:53 EST

On 05/10/2012 03:50 AM, Alex Shi wrote:
>> Ok, question:
>> we're comparing TLB size with the amount of pages mapped by this mm
>> struct. AFAICT, that doesn't mean that all those mapped pages do have
>> respective entries in the TLB, does it?
>> If so, then the actual entries number is kinda inaccurate, no? We don't
>> really know how many TLB entries actually belong to this mm struct. Or am I
>> missing something?
> No, we can not know the exactly TLB entires for. But usually, when you
> process is doing the mprotect/munmap etc system call, your process has
> taken much of memory and already filled lots of TLB entries.

$ strace true 2>&1 | grep mprotect
mprotect(0x7f67a934b000, 2093056, PROT_NONE) = 0
mprotect(0x7f67a954a000, 16384, PROT_READ) = 0
mprotect(0x607000, 4096, PROT_READ) = 0
mprotect(0x7f67a9773000, 4096, PROT_READ) = 0

This appears to be part of glibc process setup. Define "usually".

GNU/Linux isn't: Linux=GPLv2, GNU=GPLv3+, they can't share code.
Either it's "mere aggregation", or a license violation. Pick one.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at