On Sun, Jun 18, 2017 at 2:29 PM, Levin, Alexander (Sasha Levin)
wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 09:56:18PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>There are three performance benefits here:
>>
>>1. TLB flushing is slow. (I.e. the flush itself takes a while.)
>> This
On Sun, Jun 18, 2017 at 2:29 PM, Levin, Alexander (Sasha Levin)
wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 09:56:18PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>There are three performance benefits here:
>>
>>1. TLB flushing is slow. (I.e. the flush itself takes a while.)
>> This avoids many of them when switching
On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 09:56:18PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>There are three performance benefits here:
>
>1. TLB flushing is slow. (I.e. the flush itself takes a while.)
> This avoids many of them when switching tasks by using PCID. In
> a stupid little benchmark I did, it saves about
On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 09:56:18PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>There are three performance benefits here:
>
>1. TLB flushing is slow. (I.e. the flush itself takes a while.)
> This avoids many of them when switching tasks by using PCID. In
> a stupid little benchmark I did, it saves about
On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 3:18 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 06/13/2017 09:56 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> 2. Mms that have been used recently on a given CPU might get to keep
>>their TLB entries alive across process switches with this patch
>>set. TLB fills are
On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 3:18 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 06/13/2017 09:56 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> 2. Mms that have been used recently on a given CPU might get to keep
>>their TLB entries alive across process switches with this patch
>>set. TLB fills are pretty fast on modern CPUs,
On 06/13/2017 09:56 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> 2. Mms that have been used recently on a given CPU might get to keep
>their TLB entries alive across process switches with this patch
>set. TLB fills are pretty fast on modern CPUs, but they're even
>faster when they don't happen.
On 06/13/2017 09:56 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> 2. Mms that have been used recently on a given CPU might get to keep
>their TLB entries alive across process switches with this patch
>set. TLB fills are pretty fast on modern CPUs, but they're even
>faster when they don't happen.
There are three performance benefits here:
1. TLB flushing is slow. (I.e. the flush itself takes a while.)
This avoids many of them when switching tasks by using PCID. In
a stupid little benchmark I did, it saves about 100ns on my laptop
per context switch. I'll try to improve that
There are three performance benefits here:
1. TLB flushing is slow. (I.e. the flush itself takes a while.)
This avoids many of them when switching tasks by using PCID. In
a stupid little benchmark I did, it saves about 100ns on my laptop
per context switch. I'll try to improve that
10 matches
Mail list logo