x86 Maintainers, I've sent this a couple of times and resolved all the feedback I've received. It has sign-offs from Mel and Rik. Could this get picked up in to the x86 tree, please? Changes from v3: * Include the patch I was using to gather detailed statistics about the length of the ranged TLB flushes * Fix some documentation typos * Add a patch to rework the remote tlb flush code to plumb the tracepoints in easier, and add missing tracepoints * use __print_symbolic() for the human-readable tracepoint descriptions * change an int to bool in patch 1 * Specifically call out that we removed itlb vs. dtlb logic Changes from v2: * Added a brief comment above the ceiling tunable * Updated the documentation to mention large pages and say "individual flush" instead of invlpg in most cases. I've run this through a variety of systems in the LKP harness, as well as running it on my desktop for a few days. I'm yet to see an to see if any perfmance regressions (or gains) show up. arch/x86/include/asm/mmu_context.h | 6 ++ arch/x86/include/asm/processor.h | 1 arch/x86/kernel/cpu/amd.c | 7 -- arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c | 13 ---- arch/x86/kernel/cpu/intel.c | 26 --------- arch/x86/mm/tlb.c | 106 ++++++++++++++++++------------------- include/linux/mm_types.h | 8 ++ 7 files changed, 68 insertions(+), 99 deletions(-) -- I originally went to look at this becuase I realized that newer CPUs were not present in the intel_tlb_flushall_shift_set() code. I went to try to figure out where to stick newer CPUs (do we consider them more like SandyBridge or IvyBridge), and was not able to repeat the original experiments. Instead, this set does: 1. Rework the code a bit to ready it for tracepoints 2. Add tracepoints 3. Add a new tunable and set it to a sane value -- 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>