* Mel Gorman <mgorman@xxxxxxx> wrote: > [...] > > Because we lack data on TLB range flush distributions I think we > should still go with the conservative choice for the TLB flush > shift. The worst case is really bad here and it's painfully obvious > on ebizzy. So I'm obviously much in favor of this - I'd in fact suggest making the conservative choice on _all_ CPU models that have aggressive TLB range values right now, because frankly the testing used to pick those values does not look all that convincing to me. I very much suspect that the problem goes wider than just IvyBridge CPUs ... it's just that few people put as much testing into it as you. We can certainly get more aggressive in the future, subject to proper measurements. Thanks, Ingo -- 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>