Re: [PATCH 2/3] x86/flush_tlb: try flush_tlb_single one by one inflush_tlb_range

[Borislav Petkov]

On Wed, May 02, 2012 at 07:38:47PM +0800, Alex Shi wrote:
> > Are you saying you want to have this setting per family?
> 
> Set it according to CPU type is more precise, but looks ugly.

By "CPU type" do you mean microarchitecture here?

> I am wondering if it worth to do. Maybe conservative selection is
> acceptable?

Well, as I said earlier, I'd run it on a couple of different machines
and make FLUSHALL_BAR configurable from userspace - this way you have
real, solid data instead of guessing the exact number.

> > Also, have you run your patches with other benchmarks beside your
> > microbenchmark, say kernbench, SPEC<something>, i.e. some other
> > multithreaded benchmark touching shared memory? Are you seeing any
> > improvement there?
> 
> I tested oltp reading and specjbb2005 with openjdk. They should not much
> flush_tlb_range calling. So, no clear improvement.
> Do you know benchmarks which cause enough flush_tlb_range?

Not really. Probably get a couple of benchmarks and count
flush_tlb_range calls with trace_printk or perf probe? :-)

[..]

> Believe we didn't need to know this, much more thread number just
> weaken and cover the improvement. When the thread number goes down,
> the performance gain appears. So, don't need care this.

Ok, this is also what the data showed, much higher gain with smaller
thread counts.

> Any more comments for this patchset?

Nope, thanks.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.

Advanced Micro Devices GmbH
Einsteinring 24, 85609 Dornach
GM: Alberto Bozzo
Reg: Dornach, Landkreis Muenchen
HRB Nr. 43632 WEEE Registernr: 129 19551
--
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/