Re: post-3.18 performance regression in TLB flushing code

[Dave Hansen]

On 12/17/2014 08:53 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 04:28:23PM +0000, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 2:08 AM, Will Deacon <will.deacon@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>> So why not just this trivial patch, to make the logic be the same it
>> used to be (just using "end > 0" instead of the old "need_flush")?
> 
> Looks fine to me... Dave?

First of all, this is quite observable when testing single-threaded on a
desktop.  This is a mildly crusty Sandybridge CPU from 2011.  I made 3
runs with a single thread: ./brk1_processes -s 30 -t 1

	   fb7332a9fed : 4323385
	   fb7332a9fed^: 4503736
fb7332a9fed+Linus's fix: 4516761

These things are also a little bit noisy, so we're well within the
margin of error with Linus's fix.

This also holds up on the large system.
--
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/