On 06/08/2015 10:45 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote: > As per my measurements the __flush_tlb_single() primitive (which you use in patch > #2) is very expensive on most Intel and AMD CPUs. It barely makes sense for a 2 > pages and gets exponentially worse. It's probably done in microcode and its > performance is horrible. I discussed this a bit in commit a5102476a2. I'd be curious what numbers you came up with. But, don't we have to take in to account the cost of refilling the TLB in addition to the cost of emptying it? The TLB size is historically increasing on a per-core basis, so isn't this refill cost only going to get worse? -- 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>