On Thu, Dec 06, 2018 at 08:42:03PM +0000, Alexander Van Brunt wrote:

quoted

quoted

quoted

If we roll a TLB invalidation routine without the trailing DSB, what sort of
performance does that get you?

It is not as good. In some cases, it is really bad. Skipping the invalidate was
the most consistent and fast implementation.

quoted

My problem with that is it's not really much different to just skipping the
page table update entirely. Skipping the DSB is closer to what is done on
x86, where we bound the stale entry time to the next context-switch.

Which of the three implementations is the "that" and "it" in the first sentence?

that = it = skipping the whole invalidation + the DSB

quoted

Given that I already queued the version without the DSB, we have the choice
to either continue with that or to revert it and go back to the previous
behaviour. Which would you prefer?

To me, skipping the DSB is a win over doing the invalidate and the DSB because
it is faster on average.

DSBs have a big impact on the performance of other CPUs in the inner shareable
domain because of the ordering requirements. For example, we have observed
Cortex A57s stalling all CPUs in the cluster until Device accesses complete.

Would you be open to a patch on top of the DSB skipping patch that skips the
whole invalidate?

I don't think so; we don't have an upper bound on how long we'll have a
stale TLB if remove the invalidation completely.

Will

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel