From: Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@gmail.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>
Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: Align TLB invalidation info
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2018 13:17:36 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <C841B1F3-9A76-4D09-88AB-EEC4447DB70F@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CALCETrX-zmhoLgZzL_VJZqZF+XTS26o+HHA7=vA+E7T88yO_uA@mail.gmail.com>
Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 1:09 PM, Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 01/31/2018 12:11 PM, Nadav Amit wrote:
>>>> The TLB invalidation info is allocated on the stack, which might cause
>>>> it to be unaligned. Since this information may be transferred to
>>>> different cores for TLB shootdown, this might result in an additional
>>>> cache-line bouncing between the cores.
>>>>
>>>> GCC provides a way to deal with it by using
>>>> __builtin_alloca_with_align(). Use it to avoid the bouncing cache lines.
>>>
>>> It doesn't really *bounce*, though, does it? I don't see any writes on
>>> the remote side. The remote use seems entirely read-only.
>>>
>>> You also don't have to exhaustively test this, but I'd love to see at
>>> least a sanity check with a microbenchmark (or something) that, yes,
>>> this does help *something*. Maybe it makes the remote
>>> flush_tlb_func_common() run faster because it's pulling in fewer lines,
>>> or maybe you can even detect fewer misses in there.
>>
>> I agree that with the whole Meltdown/Spectre entry-cost it might not even be
>> measurable, at least on small ( < 2 sockets) machines. But I do not think it
>> worth profiling. Basically, AFAIK, all the data structures that are used for
>> inter-processor communication by the kernel are aligned, and this is an
>> exception.
>
> This is only going to be measurable at all on NUMA, I suspect.
Yes, I meant <= 2 ...
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-01-31 21:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-01-31 20:11 Nadav Amit
2018-01-31 20:24 ` Andy Lutomirski
2018-01-31 20:48 ` Nadav Amit
2018-01-31 20:49 ` Dave Hansen
2018-01-31 20:52 ` Nadav Amit
2018-01-31 21:00 ` Andy Lutomirski
2018-01-31 21:01 ` Dave Hansen
2018-01-31 21:09 ` Nadav Amit
2018-01-31 21:15 ` Andy Lutomirski
2018-01-31 21:17 ` Nadav Amit [this message]
[not found] ` <f7270e0d-d1d1-599d-d2c9-ddc2c263e090@linux.intel.com>
2018-02-01 5:38 ` Nadav Amit
2018-02-01 9:38 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-02-01 18:45 ` 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=C841B1F3-9A76-4D09-88AB-EEC4447DB70F@gmail.com \
--to=nadav.amit@gmail.com \
--cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luto@kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--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
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®