From: Mike Travis <mike.travis@hpe.com>
To: Russ Anderson <rja@hpe.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Nadav Amit <namit@vmware.com>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
x86@kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
Dimitri Sivanich <sivanich@hpe.com>,
Hedi Berriche <hedi.berriche@hpe.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 8/9] x86/mm/tlb: Remove UV special case
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2019 13:29:10 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <373adfb0-0047-eae2-46a5-041caddfca97@hpe.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190709200914.fjvi3cy3qfc6fmis@hpe.com>
On 7/9/2019 1:09 PM, Russ Anderson wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 09, 2019 at 09:50:27PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> On Tue, 2 Jul 2019, Nadav Amit wrote:
>>
>>> SGI UV support is outdated and not maintained, and it is not clear how
>>> it performs relatively to non-UV. Remove the code to simplify the code.
>>
>> You should at least Cc the SGI/HP folks on that. They are still
>> around. Done so.
>
> Thanks Thomas. The SGI UV is now HPE Superdome Flex and is
> very much still supported.
>
> Thanks.
>
>>> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
>>> Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
>>> Suggested-by: Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>
>>> Signed-off-by: Nadav Amit <namit@vmware.com>
>>> ---
>>> arch/x86/mm/tlb.c | 25 -------------------------
>>> 1 file changed, 25 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/tlb.c b/arch/x86/mm/tlb.c
>>> index b47a71820f35..64afe1215495 100644
>>> --- a/arch/x86/mm/tlb.c
>>> +++ b/arch/x86/mm/tlb.c
>>> @@ -689,31 +689,6 @@ void native_flush_tlb_multi(const struct cpumask *cpumask,
>>> trace_tlb_flush(TLB_REMOTE_SEND_IPI,
>>> (info->end - info->start) >> PAGE_SHIFT);
>>>
>>> - if (is_uv_system()) {
>>> - /*
>>> - * This whole special case is confused. UV has a "Broadcast
>>> - * Assist Unit", which seems to be a fancy way to send IPIs.
>>> - * Back when x86 used an explicit TLB flush IPI, UV was
>>> - * optimized to use its own mechanism. These days, x86 uses
>>> - * smp_call_function_many(), but UV still uses a manual IPI,
>>> - * and that IPI's action is out of date -- it does a manual
>>> - * flush instead of calling flush_tlb_func_remote(). This
>>> - * means that the percpu tlb_gen variables won't be updated
>>> - * and we'll do pointless flushes on future context switches.
>>> - *
>>> - * Rather than hooking native_flush_tlb_multi() here, I think
>>> - * that UV should be updated so that smp_call_function_many(),
>>> - * etc, are optimal on UV.
>>> - */
I thought this change was already proposed a bit ago and we acked it
awhile back. Also the replacement functionality is being worked on but
it is more complex. The smp call many has to support all the reasons
why it's called and not just the tlb shoot downs as is the current BAU case.
>>> - flush_tlb_func_local(info);
>>> -
>>> - cpumask = uv_flush_tlb_others(cpumask, info);
>>> - if (cpumask)
>>> - smp_call_function_many(cpumask, flush_tlb_func_remote,
>>> - (void *)info, 1);
>>> - return;
>>> - }
>>> -
>>> /*
>>> * If no page tables were freed, we can skip sending IPIs to
>>> * CPUs in lazy TLB mode. They will flush the CPU themselves
>>> --
>>> 2.17.1
>>>
>>>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-07-09 20:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-07-02 23:51 [PATCH v2 0/9] x86: Concurrent TLB flushes Nadav Amit
2019-07-02 23:51 ` [PATCH v2 1/9] smp: Run functions concurrently in smp_call_function_many() Nadav Amit
2019-07-02 23:51 ` [PATCH v2 2/9] x86/mm/tlb: Remove reason as argument for flush_tlb_func_local() Nadav Amit
2019-07-02 23:51 ` [PATCH v2 3/9] x86/mm/tlb: Open-code on_each_cpu_cond_mask() for tlb_is_not_lazy() Nadav Amit
2019-07-02 23:51 ` [PATCH v2 4/9] x86/mm/tlb: Flush remote and local TLBs concurrently Nadav Amit
2019-07-03 14:04 ` Juergen Gross
2019-07-03 17:02 ` Nadav Amit
2019-07-03 17:43 ` [Xen-devel] " Andrew Cooper
2019-07-03 18:09 ` Nadav Amit
2019-07-02 23:51 ` [PATCH v2 5/9] x86/mm/tlb: Privatize cpu_tlbstate Nadav Amit
2019-07-02 23:51 ` [PATCH v2 6/9] x86/mm/tlb: Do not make is_lazy dirty for no reason Nadav Amit
2019-07-02 23:51 ` [PATCH v2 7/9] cpumask: Mark functions as pure Nadav Amit
2019-07-02 23:51 ` [PATCH v2 8/9] x86/mm/tlb: Remove UV special case Nadav Amit
2019-07-09 19:50 ` Thomas Gleixner
2019-07-09 20:09 ` Russ Anderson
2019-07-09 20:29 ` Mike Travis [this message]
2019-07-09 21:09 ` Nadav Amit
2019-07-09 21:17 ` Mike Travis
2019-07-02 23:51 ` [PATCH v2 9/9] x86/mm/tlb: Remove unnecessary uses of the inline keyword Nadav Amit
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=373adfb0-0047-eae2-46a5-041caddfca97@hpe.com \
--to=mike.travis@hpe.com \
--cc=dave.hansen@intel.com \
--cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=hedi.berriche@hpe.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luto@kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=namit@vmware.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rja@hpe.com \
--cc=sivanich@hpe.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/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
Powered by JetHome