On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 09:59:33PM +0800, Alex Shi wrote:
> On 12/12/2013 07:55 PM, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > NR_TLB_LOCAL_FLUSH_ALL is not always accounted for correctly and the
> > comparison with total_vm is done before taking tlb_flushall_shift into
> > account. Clean it up.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@xxxxxxx>
>
> Reviewed-by: Alex Shi
Thanks.
> > ---
> > arch/x86/mm/tlb.c | 12 ++++++------
> > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/tlb.c b/arch/x86/mm/tlb.c
> > index ae699b3..09b8cb8 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/mm/tlb.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/mm/tlb.c
> > @@ -189,6 +189,7 @@ void flush_tlb_mm_range(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long start,
> > {
> > unsigned long addr;
> > unsigned act_entries, tlb_entries = 0;
> > + unsigned long nr_base_pages;
> >
> > preempt_disable();
> > if (current->active_mm != mm)
> > @@ -210,18 +211,17 @@ void flush_tlb_mm_range(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long start,
> > tlb_entries = tlb_lli_4k[ENTRIES];
> > else
> > tlb_entries = tlb_lld_4k[ENTRIES];
> > +
> > /* Assume all of TLB entries was occupied by this task */
>
> the benchmark break this assumption?
No, but it's a small benchmark with very little else running at the
time. It's an assumption that would only hold true on dedicated machines
to a single application. It would not hold true on desktops, multi-tier
server applications etc.
--
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs
--
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>