[PATCH 3/3] arm64, mm: Use IPIs for TLB invalidation.
David Daney
ddaney at caviumnetworks.com
Mon Jul 13 11:58:24 PDT 2015
On 07/13/2015 11:17 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 09:25:23PM +0100, David Daney wrote:
>> From: David Daney <david.daney at cavium.com>
>>
>> Most broadcast TLB invalidations are unnecessary. So when
>> invalidating for a given mm/vma target the only the needed CPUs via
>> and IPI.
>>
>> For global TLB invalidations, also use IPI.
>>
>> Tested on Cavium ThunderX.
>>
>> This change reduces 'time make -j48' on kernel from 139s to 116s (83%
>> as long).
>
> Any idea *why* you're seeing such an improvement? Some older kernels had
> a bug where we'd try to flush a negative (i.e. huge) range by page, so it
> would be nice to rule that out. I assume these measurements are using
> mainline?
I have an untested multi-part theory:
1) Most of the invalidations in the kernel build will be for a mm that
was only used on a single CPU (the current CPU), so IPIs are for the
most part not needed. We win by not having to synchronize across all
CPUs waiting for the DSB to complete. I think most of it occurs at
process exit. Q: why do anything at process exit? The use of ASIDs
should make TLB invalidations at process death unnecessary.
2) By simplifying the VA range invalidations to just a single ASID based
invalidation, we are issuing many fewer TLBI broadcasts. The overhead
of refilling the local TLB with still needed mappings may be lower than
the overhead of all those TLBI operations.
>
> Having TLBI responsible for that amount of a kernel build doesn't feel
> right to me and doesn't line-up with the profiles I'm used to seeing.
I don't have enough information to comment on this at the moment.
>
> You have 16-bit ASIDs, right?
Correct. This means we aren't doing the rollover work very often, and
that it is therefore not a significant source of system overhead.
>
> Will
>
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list