Re: [RFC 00/15] x86_64: Optimize percpu accesses

[Christoph Lameter]

H. Peter Anvin wrote:

> It will, but it might still be a net loss due to higher load on the TLB
> (you're effectively using the TLB to do the table lookup for you.)  On
> the other hand, Mike points out that once we move away from fixed-sized
> segments we pretty much have to use virtual addresses anyway(*).

There will be no additional overhead since the memory already mapped 1-1 using 2MB TLBs and we want to use the same for the percpu areas. This is similar to the vmemmap solution.

>> The first percpu area would ideally be the per cpu segment generated
>> by the linker.
>>
>> How would that fit into the address map? In particular the 2G distance
>> between code and the first per cpu area must not be violated unless we
>> go to a zero based approach.
> 
> If with "zero-based" you mean "nonzero gs_base for the boot CPU" then
> yes, you're right.
> 
> Note again that that is completely orthogonal to RIP-based versus absolute.

?? The distance to the per cpu area for cpu 0 is larger than 2G. Kernel wont link with RIP based addresses. You would have to place the per cpu areas 1TB before the kernel text.




--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/