Displaying 20 results from an estimated 122 matches for "tlbs".
Did you mean:
tlb
2012 Apr 26
3
[help]: VPID tagged TLBs question.
Hi,
(Assume VPID is available and enabled.)
I''m trying to figure the TLB stuff with VPIDs. I understand from the
poorly written chapter in the intel manual that if an HVM vcpu is running
then only the TLBs tagged with the vcpu.VPID will be used. If xen
or a PV guest is running, then VPID 0 TLBs are what will be used.
Now I understand the hvm_asid_flush_vcpu upon new guest cr3, will jsut
create a new asid/vpid, so the older vcpu.vpid tlb entries will just not
be used.
However, I don''t unde...
2019 Jun 26
1
[PATCH 4/9] x86/mm/tlb: Flush remote and local TLBs concurrently
> On Jun 25, 2019, at 8:36 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto at kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 11:49 PM Nadav Amit <namit at vmware.com> wrote:
>> To improve TLB shootdown performance, flush the remote and local TLBs
>> concurrently. Introduce flush_tlb_multi() that does so. The current
>> flush_tlb_others() interface is kept, since paravirtual interfaces need
>> to be adapted first before it can be removed. This is left for future
>> work. In such PV environments, TLB flushes are not pe...
2012 Jan 17
2
Problems calling HVMOP_flush_tlbs
Hello xen-devel,
I am using xen 4.2.1 and have tried the following with kernel 3.0.0 and
3.2.1.
I am trying to invoke the HVMOP_flush_tlbs hypercall but have been
unsuccessful. I am basing my call on the functions in in xc_misc.c,
trying to guess what is meant by "@arg must be null" in the comment
where HVMOP_flush_tlbs is defined. What is the correct way to invoke
this hypercall?
If I call it like this, I receive an...
2019 Jun 26
0
[PATCH 4/9] x86/mm/tlb: Flush remote and local TLBs concurrently
On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 11:49 PM Nadav Amit <namit at vmware.com> wrote:
>
> To improve TLB shootdown performance, flush the remote and local TLBs
> concurrently. Introduce flush_tlb_multi() that does so. The current
> flush_tlb_others() interface is kept, since paravirtual interfaces need
> to be adapted first before it can be removed. This is left for future
> work. In such PV environments, TLB flushes are not performed, at this...
2019 May 25
0
[RFC PATCH 5/6] x86/mm/tlb: Flush remote and local TLBs concurrently
On 25/05/2019 10:22, Nadav Amit wrote:
> To improve TLB shootdown performance, flush the remote and local TLBs
> concurrently. Introduce flush_tlb_multi() that does so. The current
> flush_tlb_others() interface is kept, since paravirtual interfaces need
> to be adapted first before it can be removed. This is left for future
> work. In such PV environments, TLB flushes are not performed, at this...
2019 May 31
0
[RFC PATCH v2 04/12] x86/mm/tlb: Flush remote and local TLBs concurrently
On 31/05/2019 08:36, Nadav Amit wrote:
> To improve TLB shootdown performance, flush the remote and local TLBs
> concurrently. Introduce flush_tlb_multi() that does so. The current
> flush_tlb_others() interface is kept, since paravirtual interfaces need
> to be adapted first before it can be removed. This is left for future
> work. In such PV environments, TLB flushes are not performed, at this...
2019 May 27
0
[RFC PATCH 5/6] x86/mm/tlb: Flush remote and local TLBs concurrently
On 27/05/19 11:47, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 10:54:50AM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
>> On 25/05/2019 10:22, Nadav Amit wrote:
>
>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt_types.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt_types.h
>>> index 946f8f1f1efc..3a156e63c57d 100644
>>> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt_types.h
>>> +++
2019 May 27
1
[RFC PATCH 5/6] x86/mm/tlb: Flush remote and local TLBs concurrently
On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 12:21:59PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 27/05/19 11:47, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c
> > @@ -580,7 +580,7 @@ static void __init kvm_apf_trap_init(voi
> >
> > static DEFINE_PER_CPU(cpumask_var_t, __pv_tlb_mask);
> >
> > -static void kvm_flush_tlb_others(const
2019 Jun 26
0
[PATCH 4/9] x86/mm/tlb: Flush remote and local TLBs concurrently
On 6/25/19 7:35 PM, Nadav Amit wrote:
>>> const struct flush_tlb_info *f = info;
>>> + enum tlb_flush_reason reason;
>>> +
>>> + reason = (f->mm == NULL) ? TLB_LOCAL_SHOOTDOWN : TLB_LOCAL_MM_SHOOTDOWN;
>>
>> Should we just add the "reason" to flush_tlb_info? It's OK-ish to imply
>> it like this, but seems like it would be
2019 Jul 03
0
[PATCH v2 4/9] x86/mm/tlb: Flush remote and local TLBs concurrently
> On Jul 3, 2019, at 7:04 AM, Juergen Gross <jgross at suse.com> wrote:
>
> On 03.07.19 01:51, Nadav Amit wrote:
>> To improve TLB shootdown performance, flush the remote and local TLBs
>> concurrently. Introduce flush_tlb_multi() that does so. Introduce
>> paravirtual versions of flush_tlb_multi() for KVM, Xen and hyper-v (Xen
>> and hyper-v are only compile-tested).
>> While the updated smp infrastructure is capable of running a function on
>> a sin...
2019 Jul 22
0
[PATCH v3 4/9] x86/mm/tlb: Flush remote and local TLBs concurrently
...ool local = false;
> +
> + if (f->cpu == smp_processor_id()) {
> + local = true;
> + reason = (f->mm == NULL) ? TLB_LOCAL_SHOOTDOWN : TLB_LOCAL_MM_SHOOTDOWN;
> + } else {
> + inc_irq_stat(irq_tlb_count);
> +
> + if (f->mm && f->mm != this_cpu_read(cpu_tlbstate.loaded_mm))
> + return;
> +
> + count_vm_tlb_event(NR_TLB_REMOTE_FLUSH_RECEIVED);
> + }
> +
> + flush_tlb_func_common(f, local, reason);
> +}
> +
> static bool tlb_is_not_lazy(int cpu)
> {
> return !per_cpu(cpu_tlbstate_shared.is_lazy, cpu);
Nice! I will ad...
2019 Jul 03
1
[Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 4/9] x86/mm/tlb: Flush remote and local TLBs concurrently
On 03/07/2019 18:02, Nadav Amit wrote:
>> On Jul 3, 2019, at 7:04 AM, Juergen Gross <jgross at suse.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 03.07.19 01:51, Nadav Amit wrote:
>>> To improve TLB shootdown performance, flush the remote and local TLBs
>>> concurrently. Introduce flush_tlb_multi() that does so. Introduce
>>> paravirtual versions of flush_tlb_multi() for KVM, Xen and hyper-v (Xen
>>> and hyper-v are only compile-tested).
>>> While the updated smp infrastructure is capable of running a function o...
2019 Jul 03
2
[PATCH v2 4/9] x86/mm/tlb: Flush remote and local TLBs concurrently
On 03.07.19 01:51, Nadav Amit wrote:
> To improve TLB shootdown performance, flush the remote and local TLBs
> concurrently. Introduce flush_tlb_multi() that does so. Introduce
> paravirtual versions of flush_tlb_multi() for KVM, Xen and hyper-v (Xen
> and hyper-v are only compile-tested).
>
> While the updated smp infrastructure is capable of running a function on
> a single local core...
2019 Jul 03
2
[PATCH v2 4/9] x86/mm/tlb: Flush remote and local TLBs concurrently
On 03.07.19 01:51, Nadav Amit wrote:
> To improve TLB shootdown performance, flush the remote and local TLBs
> concurrently. Introduce flush_tlb_multi() that does so. Introduce
> paravirtual versions of flush_tlb_multi() for KVM, Xen and hyper-v (Xen
> and hyper-v are only compile-tested).
>
> While the updated smp infrastructure is capable of running a function on
> a single local core...
2019 Jul 19
0
[PATCH v3 4/9] x86/mm/tlb: Flush remote and local TLBs concurrently
To improve TLB shootdown performance, flush the remote and local TLBs
concurrently. Introduce flush_tlb_multi() that does so. Introduce
paravirtual versions of flush_tlb_multi() for KVM, Xen and hyper-v (Xen
and hyper-v are only compile-tested).
While the updated smp infrastructure is capable of running a function on
a single local core, it is not optimized for this...
2019 Jul 02
0
[PATCH v2 4/9] x86/mm/tlb: Flush remote and local TLBs concurrently
To improve TLB shootdown performance, flush the remote and local TLBs
concurrently. Introduce flush_tlb_multi() that does so. Introduce
paravirtual versions of flush_tlb_multi() for KVM, Xen and hyper-v (Xen
and hyper-v are only compile-tested).
While the updated smp infrastructure is capable of running a function on
a single local core, it is not optimized for this...
2019 Jul 22
2
[PATCH v3 4/9] x86/mm/tlb: Flush remote and local TLBs concurrently
...eason reason = TLB_REMOTE_SHOOTDOWN;
+ bool local = false;
+
+ if (f->cpu == smp_processor_id()) {
+ local = true;
+ reason = (f->mm == NULL) ? TLB_LOCAL_SHOOTDOWN : TLB_LOCAL_MM_SHOOTDOWN;
+ } else {
+ inc_irq_stat(irq_tlb_count);
+
+ if (f->mm && f->mm != this_cpu_read(cpu_tlbstate.loaded_mm))
+ return;
+
+ count_vm_tlb_event(NR_TLB_REMOTE_FLUSH_RECEIVED);
+ }
+
+ flush_tlb_func_common(f, local, reason);
+}
+
static bool tlb_is_not_lazy(int cpu)
{
return !per_cpu(cpu_tlbstate_shared.is_lazy, cpu);
2019 Jul 22
2
[PATCH v3 4/9] x86/mm/tlb: Flush remote and local TLBs concurrently
...eason reason = TLB_REMOTE_SHOOTDOWN;
+ bool local = false;
+
+ if (f->cpu == smp_processor_id()) {
+ local = true;
+ reason = (f->mm == NULL) ? TLB_LOCAL_SHOOTDOWN : TLB_LOCAL_MM_SHOOTDOWN;
+ } else {
+ inc_irq_stat(irq_tlb_count);
+
+ if (f->mm && f->mm != this_cpu_read(cpu_tlbstate.loaded_mm))
+ return;
+
+ count_vm_tlb_event(NR_TLB_REMOTE_FLUSH_RECEIVED);
+ }
+
+ flush_tlb_func_common(f, local, reason);
+}
+
static bool tlb_is_not_lazy(int cpu)
{
return !per_cpu(cpu_tlbstate_shared.is_lazy, cpu);
2019 May 27
3
[RFC PATCH 5/6] x86/mm/tlb: Flush remote and local TLBs concurrently
On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 10:54:50AM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
> On 25/05/2019 10:22, Nadav Amit wrote:
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt_types.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt_types.h
> > index 946f8f1f1efc..3a156e63c57d 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt_types.h
> > +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt_types.h
> > @@ -211,6 +211,12 @@
2019 May 27
3
[RFC PATCH 5/6] x86/mm/tlb: Flush remote and local TLBs concurrently
On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 10:54:50AM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
> On 25/05/2019 10:22, Nadav Amit wrote:
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt_types.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt_types.h
> > index 946f8f1f1efc..3a156e63c57d 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt_types.h
> > +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt_types.h
> > @@ -211,6 +211,12 @@