On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 5:25 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 08:53:22AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> +static void choose_new_asid(struct mm_struct *next, u64 next_tlb_gen,
>> + u16 *new_asid, bool *need_flush)
>> +{
>> + u16 asid;
>> +
>> + if (!static_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_PCID)) {
>> + *new_asid = 0;
>> + *need_flush = true;
>> + return;
>> + }
>> +
>> + for (asid = 0; asid < TLB_NR_DYN_ASIDS; asid++) {
>> + if (this_cpu_read(cpu_tlbstate.ctxs[asid].ctx_id) !=
>> + next->context.ctx_id)
>> + continue;
>> +
>> + *new_asid = asid;
>> + *need_flush = (this_cpu_read(cpu_tlbstate.ctxs[asid].tlb_gen) <
>> + next_tlb_gen);
>> + return;
>> + }
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * We don't currently own an ASID slot on this CPU.
>> + * Allocate a slot.
>> + */
>> + *new_asid = this_cpu_add_return(cpu_tlbstate.next_asid, 1) - 1;
>
> So this basically RR the ASID slots. Have you tried slightly more
> complex replacement policies like CLOCK ?
No, mainly because I'm lazy and because CLOCK requires scavenging a
bit. (Which we can certainly do, but it will further complicate the
code.) It could be worth playing with better replacement algorithms
as a followup, though.
I've also considered a slight elaboration of RR in which we make sure
not to reuse the most recent ASID slot, which would guarantee that, if
we switch from task A to B and back to A, we don't flush on the way
back to A. (Currently, if B is not in the cache, there's a 1/6 chance
we'll flush on the way back.)
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>
