On 9/28/22 05:53, Barry Song wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2022 at 10:15 PM Yicong Yang <yangyicong@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> On 2022/9/27 14:16, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> On 9/21/22 14:13, Yicong Yang wrote:
>>>> +static inline bool arch_tlbbatch_should_defer(struct mm_struct *mm)
>>>> +{
>>>> + /* for small systems with small number of CPUs, TLB shootdown is cheap */
>>>> + if (num_online_cpus() <= 4)
>>>
>>> It would be great to have some more inputs from others, whether 4 (which should
>>> to be codified into a macro e.g ARM64_NR_CPU_DEFERRED_TLB, or something similar)
>>> is optimal for an wide range of arm64 platforms.
>>>
>
> I have tested it on a 4-cpus and 8-cpus machine. but i have no machine
> with 5,6,7
> cores.
> I saw improvement on 8-cpus machines and I found 4-cpus machines don't need
> this patch.
>
> so it seems safe to have
> if (num_online_cpus() < 8)
>
>>
>> Do you prefer this macro to be static or make it configurable through kconfig then
>> different platforms can make choice based on their own situations? It maybe hard to
>> test on all the arm64 platforms.
>
> Maybe we can have this default enabled on machines with 8 and more cpus and
> provide a tlbflush_batched = on or off to allow users enable or
> disable it according
> to their hardware and products. Similar example: rodata=on or off.
No, sounds bit excessive. Kernel command line options should not be added
for every possible run time switch options.
>
> Hi Anshuman, Will, Catalin, Andrew,
> what do you think about this approach?
>
> BTW, haoxin mentioned another important user scenarios for tlb bach on arm64:
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/393d6318-aa38-01ed-6ad8-f9eac89bf0fc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
>
> I do believe we need it based on the expensive cost of tlb shootdown in arm64
> even by hardware broadcast.
Alright, for now could we enable ARCH_WANT_BATCHED_UNMAP_TLB_FLUSH selectively
with CONFIG_EXPERT and for num_online_cpus() > 8 ?
