Displaying 16 results from an estimated 16 matches for "flush_tlb_func_remote".
2019 Jul 22
2
[PATCH v3 4/9] x86/mm/tlb: Flush remote and local TLBs concurrently
On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 05:58:32PM -0700, Nadav Amit wrote:
> @@ -709,8 +716,9 @@ void native_flush_tlb_others(const struct cpumask *cpumask,
> * doing a speculative memory access.
> */
> if (info->freed_tables) {
> - smp_call_function_many(cpumask, flush_tlb_func_remote,
> - (void *)info, 1);
> + __smp_call_function_many(cpumask, flush_tlb_func_remote,
> + flush_tlb_func_local,
> + (void *)info, 1);
> } else {
> /*
> * Although we could have used on_each_cpu_cond_mask(),
> @@ -737,7 +745,8 @@ void native_flush_t...
2019 Jul 22
2
[PATCH v3 4/9] x86/mm/tlb: Flush remote and local TLBs concurrently
On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 05:58:32PM -0700, Nadav Amit wrote:
> @@ -709,8 +716,9 @@ void native_flush_tlb_others(const struct cpumask *cpumask,
> * doing a speculative memory access.
> */
> if (info->freed_tables) {
> - smp_call_function_many(cpumask, flush_tlb_func_remote,
> - (void *)info, 1);
> + __smp_call_function_many(cpumask, flush_tlb_func_remote,
> + flush_tlb_func_local,
> + (void *)info, 1);
> } else {
> /*
> * Although we could have used on_each_cpu_cond_mask(),
> @@ -737,7 +745,8 @@ void native_flush_t...
2019 Jul 22
0
[PATCH v3 4/9] x86/mm/tlb: Flush remote and local TLBs concurrently
...> On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 05:58:32PM -0700, Nadav Amit wrote:
>> @@ -709,8 +716,9 @@ void native_flush_tlb_others(const struct cpumask *cpumask,
>> * doing a speculative memory access.
>> */
>> if (info->freed_tables) {
>> - smp_call_function_many(cpumask, flush_tlb_func_remote,
>> - (void *)info, 1);
>> + __smp_call_function_many(cpumask, flush_tlb_func_remote,
>> + flush_tlb_func_local,
>> + (void *)info, 1);
>> } else {
>> /*
>> * Although we could have used on_each_cpu_cond_mask(),
>> @@ -737,7...
2019 Jun 13
4
[PATCH 4/9] x86/mm/tlb: Flush remote and local TLBs concurrently
...h_reason reason)
+static void flush_tlb_func_local(void *info)
{
const struct flush_tlb_info *f = info;
+ enum tlb_flush_reason reason;
+
+ reason = (f->mm == NULL) ? TLB_LOCAL_SHOOTDOWN : TLB_LOCAL_MM_SHOOTDOWN;
flush_tlb_func_common(f, true, reason);
}
@@ -655,14 +658,21 @@ static void flush_tlb_func_remote(void *info)
flush_tlb_func_common(f, false, TLB_REMOTE_SHOOTDOWN);
}
-static bool tlb_is_not_lazy(int cpu, void *data)
+static inline bool tlb_is_not_lazy(int cpu)
{
return !per_cpu(cpu_tlbstate.is_lazy, cpu);
}
-void native_flush_tlb_others(const struct cpumask *cpumask,
- const...
2019 Jun 13
4
[PATCH 4/9] x86/mm/tlb: Flush remote and local TLBs concurrently
...h_reason reason)
+static void flush_tlb_func_local(void *info)
{
const struct flush_tlb_info *f = info;
+ enum tlb_flush_reason reason;
+
+ reason = (f->mm == NULL) ? TLB_LOCAL_SHOOTDOWN : TLB_LOCAL_MM_SHOOTDOWN;
flush_tlb_func_common(f, true, reason);
}
@@ -655,14 +658,21 @@ static void flush_tlb_func_remote(void *info)
flush_tlb_func_common(f, false, TLB_REMOTE_SHOOTDOWN);
}
-static bool tlb_is_not_lazy(int cpu, void *data)
+static inline bool tlb_is_not_lazy(int cpu)
{
return !per_cpu(cpu_tlbstate.is_lazy, cpu);
}
-void native_flush_tlb_others(const struct cpumask *cpumask,
- const...
2019 Jun 25
0
[PATCH 4/9] x86/mm/tlb: Flush remote and local TLBs concurrently
...st add the "reason" to flush_tlb_info? It's OK-ish to imply
it like this, but seems like it would be nicer and easier to track down
the origins of these things if we did this at the caller.
> flush_tlb_func_common(f, true, reason);
> }
> @@ -655,14 +658,21 @@ static void flush_tlb_func_remote(void *info)
> flush_tlb_func_common(f, false, TLB_REMOTE_SHOOTDOWN);
> }
>
> -static bool tlb_is_not_lazy(int cpu, void *data)
> +static inline bool tlb_is_not_lazy(int cpu)
> {
> return !per_cpu(cpu_tlbstate.is_lazy, cpu);
> }
Nit: the compiler will probably inlin...
2019 Jun 26
2
[PATCH 4/9] x86/mm/tlb: Flush remote and local TLBs concurrently
...the caller.
I prefer not to. I want later to inline flush_tlb_info into the same
cacheline that holds call_function_data. Increasing the size of
flush_tlb_info for no good reason will not help?
>> flush_tlb_func_common(f, true, reason);
>> }
>> @@ -655,14 +658,21 @@ static void flush_tlb_func_remote(void *info)
>> flush_tlb_func_common(f, false, TLB_REMOTE_SHOOTDOWN);
>> }
>>
>> -static bool tlb_is_not_lazy(int cpu, void *data)
>> +static inline bool tlb_is_not_lazy(int cpu)
>> {
>> return !per_cpu(cpu_tlbstate.is_lazy, cpu);
>> }
>
> N...
2019 Jun 26
2
[PATCH 4/9] x86/mm/tlb: Flush remote and local TLBs concurrently
...the caller.
I prefer not to. I want later to inline flush_tlb_info into the same
cacheline that holds call_function_data. Increasing the size of
flush_tlb_info for no good reason will not help?
>> flush_tlb_func_common(f, true, reason);
>> }
>> @@ -655,14 +658,21 @@ static void flush_tlb_func_remote(void *info)
>> flush_tlb_func_common(f, false, TLB_REMOTE_SHOOTDOWN);
>> }
>>
>> -static bool tlb_is_not_lazy(int cpu, void *data)
>> +static inline bool tlb_is_not_lazy(int cpu)
>> {
>> return !per_cpu(cpu_tlbstate.is_lazy, cpu);
>> }
>
> N...
2019 Jul 19
5
[PATCH v3 0/9] x86: Concurrent TLB flushes
[ Cover-letter is identical to v2, including benchmark results,
excluding the change log. ]
Currently, local and remote TLB flushes are not performed concurrently,
which introduces unnecessary overhead - each INVLPG can take 100s of
cycles. This patch-set allows TLB flushes to be run concurrently: first
request the remote CPUs to initiate the flush, then run it locally, and
finally wait for
2019 May 31
2
[RFC PATCH v2 04/12] x86/mm/tlb: Flush remote and local TLBs concurrently
...h_reason reason)
+static void flush_tlb_func_local(void *info)
{
const struct flush_tlb_info *f = info;
+ enum tlb_flush_reason reason;
+
+ reason = (f->mm == NULL) ? TLB_LOCAL_SHOOTDOWN : TLB_LOCAL_MM_SHOOTDOWN;
flush_tlb_func_common(f, true, reason);
}
@@ -654,14 +657,30 @@ static void flush_tlb_func_remote(void *info)
flush_tlb_func_common(f, false, TLB_REMOTE_SHOOTDOWN);
}
-static bool tlb_is_not_lazy(int cpu, void *data)
+static inline bool tlb_is_not_lazy(int cpu)
{
return !per_cpu(cpu_tlbstate.is_lazy, cpu);
}
-void native_flush_tlb_others(const struct cpumask *cpumask,
- const...
2019 May 31
2
[RFC PATCH v2 04/12] x86/mm/tlb: Flush remote and local TLBs concurrently
...h_reason reason)
+static void flush_tlb_func_local(void *info)
{
const struct flush_tlb_info *f = info;
+ enum tlb_flush_reason reason;
+
+ reason = (f->mm == NULL) ? TLB_LOCAL_SHOOTDOWN : TLB_LOCAL_MM_SHOOTDOWN;
flush_tlb_func_common(f, true, reason);
}
@@ -654,14 +657,30 @@ static void flush_tlb_func_remote(void *info)
flush_tlb_func_common(f, false, TLB_REMOTE_SHOOTDOWN);
}
-static bool tlb_is_not_lazy(int cpu, void *data)
+static inline bool tlb_is_not_lazy(int cpu)
{
return !per_cpu(cpu_tlbstate.is_lazy, cpu);
}
-void native_flush_tlb_others(const struct cpumask *cpumask,
- const...
2019 Jul 02
0
[PATCH v2 4/9] x86/mm/tlb: Flush remote and local TLBs concurrently
...truct flush_tlb_info *f = info;
enum tlb_flush_reason reason;
@@ -645,6 +645,11 @@ static void flush_tlb_func_local(void *info)
flush_tlb_func_common(f, true, reason);
}
+void flush_tlb_func_local(const struct flush_tlb_info *info)
+{
+ __flush_tlb_func_local((void *)info);
+}
+
static void flush_tlb_func_remote(void *info)
{
const struct flush_tlb_info *f = info;
@@ -665,9 +670,14 @@ static bool tlb_is_not_lazy(int cpu)
static DEFINE_PER_CPU(cpumask_t, flush_tlb_mask);
-void native_flush_tlb_others(const struct cpumask *cpumask,
- const struct flush_tlb_info *info)
+void native_flush_tlb_mu...
2019 May 25
3
[RFC PATCH 5/6] x86/mm/tlb: Flush remote and local TLBs concurrently
...h_reason reason)
+static void flush_tlb_func_local(void *info)
{
const struct flush_tlb_info *f = info;
+ enum tlb_flush_reason reason;
+
+ reason = (f->mm == NULL) ? TLB_LOCAL_SHOOTDOWN : TLB_LOCAL_MM_SHOOTDOWN;
flush_tlb_func_common(f, true, reason);
}
@@ -654,14 +657,30 @@ static void flush_tlb_func_remote(void *info)
flush_tlb_func_common(f, false, TLB_REMOTE_SHOOTDOWN);
}
-static bool tlb_is_not_lazy(int cpu, void *data)
+static inline bool tlb_is_not_lazy(int cpu)
{
return !per_cpu(cpu_tlbstate.is_lazy, cpu);
}
-void native_flush_tlb_others(const struct cpumask *cpumask,
- const...
2019 May 25
3
[RFC PATCH 5/6] x86/mm/tlb: Flush remote and local TLBs concurrently
...h_reason reason)
+static void flush_tlb_func_local(void *info)
{
const struct flush_tlb_info *f = info;
+ enum tlb_flush_reason reason;
+
+ reason = (f->mm == NULL) ? TLB_LOCAL_SHOOTDOWN : TLB_LOCAL_MM_SHOOTDOWN;
flush_tlb_func_common(f, true, reason);
}
@@ -654,14 +657,30 @@ static void flush_tlb_func_remote(void *info)
flush_tlb_func_common(f, false, TLB_REMOTE_SHOOTDOWN);
}
-static bool tlb_is_not_lazy(int cpu, void *data)
+static inline bool tlb_is_not_lazy(int cpu)
{
return !per_cpu(cpu_tlbstate.is_lazy, cpu);
}
-void native_flush_tlb_others(const struct cpumask *cpumask,
- const...
2019 Jul 19
0
[PATCH v3 4/9] x86/mm/tlb: Flush remote and local TLBs concurrently
...er 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.
*/
+ flush_tlb_func_local((void *)info);
+
cpumask = uv_flush_tlb_others(cpumask, info);
if (cpumask)
smp_call_function_many(cpumask, flush_tlb_func_remote,
@@ -709,8 +716,9 @@ void native_flush_tlb_others(const struct cpumask *cpumask,
* doing a speculative memory access.
*/
if (info->freed_tables) {
- smp_call_function_many(cpumask, flush_tlb_func_remote,
- (void *)info, 1);
+ __smp_call_function_many(cpumask, flush_tlb_func_re...
2019 Jul 02
2
[PATCH v2 0/9] x86: Concurrent TLB flushes
Currently, local and remote TLB flushes are not performed concurrently,
which introduces unnecessary overhead - each INVLPG can take 100s of
cycles. This patch-set allows TLB flushes to be run concurrently: first
request the remote CPUs to initiate the flush, then run it locally, and
finally wait for the remote CPUs to finish their work.
In addition, there are various small optimizations to avoid