From: Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>
To: Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-arch@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [rfc][patch] x86-64 new smp_call_function design
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 14:07:16 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080227130716.GB1340@wotan.suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <47C55FD2.8030809@suse.de>
On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 02:04:18PM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
>
> > On a 2 socket, 8 core system, I see anywhere up to nearly 16x better
> > performance on a stress test. The common cases of call-all, and wait
> > are improved the least, however I think that if call-single and nowait
> > are turned into a high performance API, then new usages will pop up
> > (eg. I started this because I wanted to do "call single, nowait" calls
> > for migrating block IO completions back to submitting CPU; however I
> > am also interested in improving the "call all, wait" case for example
> > to improve vmalloc tlb flushing).
>
> TLB flushing at least on x86-64 should be already well optimized on its
> own. I would be surprised if you could do much better.
*vmalloc* TLB flushing.
void flush_tlb_all(void)
{
on_each_cpu(do_flush_tlb_all, NULL, 1, 1);
}
Of course we could use a new vector for it and speed it up a lot more,
but after my vmalloc improvements I think that would be a waste of a
vector at this point.
> > As far as I understand, calling a subset of online CPUs that is not all or
> > one, is used quite infrequently, so this might be OK.
>
> With cpusets and isolation etc. it is the normal case.
Oh really? Coming from what callers?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-02-27 13:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-02-27 12:42 Nick Piggin
2008-02-27 13:04 ` Andi Kleen
2008-02-27 13:07 ` Nick Piggin [this message]
2008-02-27 13:33 ` Andi Kleen
2008-03-16 14:33 ` Avi Kivity
2008-02-27 13:27 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-02-27 13:50 ` Nick Piggin
2008-02-27 15:02 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-02-27 22:14 ` Nick Piggin
2008-02-28 8:45 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-02-28 12:55 ` Andi Kleen
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20080227130716.GB1340@wotan.suse.de \
--to=npiggin@suse.de \
--cc=ak@suse.de \
--cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®