Re: unnecessary tlb flush in mprotect

[Alex Shi]

On 05/23/2012 12:37 AM, Andi Kleen wrote:

> On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 09:08:47AM +0800, Alex Shi wrote:
>> On 05/21/2012 04:30 PM, Alex Shi wrote:
>>
>>> when mprotect just change prots of non-present pages, current mprotect
>>> still do the tlb flush in check_protection().
>>> but according to 4.10.2.3 Intel SDM V3A (
>>> www.intel.com/Assets/ja_JP/PDF/manual/253668.pdf ) at that time, TLB has
>>> no this lines for this page. So, tlb flush is just waste time. (for cr3
>>> rewrite, flush all tlb, or invlpg, like a 'nop' in intel cpu)
>>>
>>> Do we need to add the pte_present similar check here to prevent the
>>> unnecessary tlb flushing? I mean, are there real case in word, User like
>>> to change page prots before assign a physical page to it?
>>>
>>
>>
>> Any comments from linux-mm emailing list?
> 
> I would be careful with TLB optimizations if it's not a clear performance
> wins. A lot of these interactions are tricky and it's very easy to break
> things in subtle and hard to debug ways.
> 
> -Andi


Sure, functionality is fundamental.
--
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/