On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 9:07 AM, Will Deacon <will.dea...@arm.com> wrote: > > Ok, that's useful, thanks. Out of curiosity, what *is* the current intention > of __tlb_remove_tlb_entry, if start/end shouldn't be touched by > architectures? Is it just for the PPC hash thing?
I think it's both the PPC hash, and for "legacy reasons" (ie architectures that don't use the generic code, and were converted from the "invalidate as you walk the tables" without ever really fixing the "you have to flush the TLB before you free the page, and do batching"). It would be lovely if we could just drop it entirely, although changing it to actively do the minimal range is fine too. > I was certainly seeing this issue trigger regularly when running firefox, > but I'll need to dig and find out the differences in range size. I'm wondering whether that was perhaps because of the mix-up with initialization of the range. Afaik, that would always break your min/max thing for the first batch (and since the batches are fairly large, "first" may be "only") But hey. it's possible that firefox does some big mappings but only populates the beginning. Most architectures don't tend to have excessive glass jaws in this area: invalidating things page-by-page is invariably so slow that at some point you just go "just do the whole range". > Since we have hardware broadcasting of TLB invalidations on ARM, it is > in our interest to keep the number of outstanding operations as small as > possible, particularly on large systems where we don't get the targetted > shootdown with a single message that you can perform using IPIs (i.e. > you can only broadcast to all or no CPUs, and that happens for each pte). Do you seriously *have* to broadcast for each pte? Because that is quite frankly moronic. We batch things up in software for a real good reason: doing things one entry at a time just cannot ever scale. At some point (and that point is usually not even very far away), it's much better to do a single invalidate over a range. The cost of having to refill the TLB's is *much* smaller than the cost of doing tons of cross-CPU invalidates. That's true even for the cases where we track the CPU's involved in that mapping, and only invalidate a small subset. With a "all CPU's broadcast", the cross-over point must be even smaller. Doing thousands of CPU broadcasts is just crazy, even if they are hw-accelerated. Can't you just do a full invalidate and a SW IPI for larger ranges? And as mentioned, true sparse mappings are actually fairly rare, so making extra effort (and data structures) to have individual ranges sounds crazy. Is this some hw-enforced thing? You really can't turn off the cross-cpu-for-each-pte braindamage? Linus -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/