On 12/13/2013 09:02 AM, Alex Shi wrote: >> > You have not replied to this concern of mine: if my concern is valid >> > then that invalidates much of the current tunings. > The benefit from pretend flush range is not unconditional, since invlpg > also cost time. And different CPU has different invlpg/flush_all > execution time. TLB refill time is also different on different kind of cpu. BTW, A bewitching idea is till attracting me. https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/5/23/148 Even it was sentenced to death by HPA. https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/5/24/143 That is that just flush one of thread TLB is enough for SMT/HT, seems TLB is still shared in core on Intel CPU. This benefit is unconditional, and if my memory right, Kbuild testing can improve about 1~2% in average level. So could you like to accept some ugly quirks to do this lazy TLB flush on known working CPU? Forgive me if it's stupid. -- Thanks Alex -- 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>