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

[Mel Gorman]

On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 05:49:25PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * 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 think the choices there are already reasonably conservative. I'd be
reluctant to support merging a patch that made a choice on all CPU models
without having access to the machines to run tests on. I don't see the
Intel people volunteering to do the necessary testing.

-- 
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs
--
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/