In message <1273624565.5738.8.camel at concordia> you wrote:
>
> --=-wnrJa93KBardFtse2eHB
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> On Wed, 2010-05-12 at 09:29 +1000, Michael Neuling wrote:
> >=20
> > In message <1273561463.9209.138.camel at concordia> you wrote:
> > >=20
> > > --=3D-S056dRzmrEHDBzKyyTOs
> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"UTF-8"
> > > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> > >=20
> > > On Tue, 2010-05-11 at 16:28 +1000, Michael Neuling wrote:
> > > > Currently for kexec the PTE tear down on 1TB segment systems normally
> > > > requires 3 hcalls for each PTE removal. On a machine with 32GB of
> > > > memory it can take around a minute to remove all the PTEs.
> > > >=3D20
> > > ..
> > > > - /* TODO: Use bulk call */
> > >=20
> > > ...
> > > > + /* Read in batches of 4,
> > > > + * invalidate only valid entries not in the VRMA
> > > > + * hpte_count will be a multiple of 4
> > > > + */
> > > > + for (i =3D3D 0; i < hpte_count; i +=3D3D 4) {
> > > > + lpar_rc =3D3D plpar_pte_read_4_raw(0, i, (void *)ptes);
> > > > + if (lpar_rc !=3D3D H_SUCCESS)
> > > > + continue;
> > > > + for (j =3D3D 0; j < 4; j++){
> > > > + if ((ptes[j].pteh & HPTE_V_VRMA_MASK) =3D3D=3D3
D
> > > > + HPTE_V_VRMA_MASK)
> > > > + continue;
> > > > + if (ptes[j].pteh & HPTE_V_VALID)
> > > > + plpar_pte_remove_raw(0, i + j, 0,
> > > > + &(ptes[j].pteh), &(ptes[j].ptel
));
> > > > }
> > >=20
> > > Have you tried using the bulk remove call, if none of the HPTEs are for
> > > the VRMA? Rumour was it was slower/the-same, but that may have been
> > > apocryphal.
> >=20
> > No, I didn't try it.
> >=20
> > I think the real solution is to ask FW for a new call to do it all for
> > us.
>
> Sure, you could theoretically still get a 4x speedup though by using the
> bulk remove.
We probably only do the remove on < 1% of the hptes now. So I doubt we
would get a speedup since most of the time we aren't do the remove
anymore.
Mikey
