Re: TLB evaluation for Linux

[CHADHA,VINEET]

On Tue Sep 02 09:43:53 EDT 2008, Arjan van de Ven 
<arjan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Tue, 2 Sep 2008 00:12:03 -0400 (EDT)
> "CHADHA,VINEET" <vineet@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> note that linux only does an ipi to processors that actually are
> currently running a thread of the same program (or a kernel 
> thread).
> Old versions didn't do this (they also IPI'd idle processors), 
> but
> on modern cpus and modern kernels that's not supposed to happen 
> anymore
> (the C-states that flush the tlb anyway now do the kernel side
> bookkeeping as well to avoid the wakeup+useless flush)

Interesting to know about it.

> one of the problems is that invlpg is rather expensive; in 
> long-ago
> experiments the threshold was like around a handful of pages 
> already.
> At that point.. all the bookkeeping isn't likely to be a win.
> Esp since a tlb refill on x86 is quite cheap.

Yeah that is possible. Do you have link to any published work ? It 
would be still interesting to characterize and  compare behavior 
for new workloads scenarios such as virtual machines.

--
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/