Re: [PATCH 0/4] Fix ebizzy performance regression due to X86 TLBrange flush v2

[Ingo Molnar]

* Mel Gorman <mgorman@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> [...]
> 
> Because we lack data on TLB range flush distributions I think we 
> should still go with the conservative choice for the TLB flush 
> shift. The worst case is really bad here and it's painfully obvious 
> on ebizzy.

So I'm obviously much in favor of this - I'd in fact suggest making 
the conservative choice on _all_ CPU models that have aggressive TLB 
range values right now, because frankly the testing used to pick those 
values does not look all that convincing to me.

I very much suspect that the problem goes wider than just IvyBridge 
CPUs ... it's just that few people put as much testing into it as you.

We can certainly get more aggressive in the future, subject to proper 
measurements.

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
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/