* Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org> wrote: > On Wed, 17 Jul 2013 09:21:00 +0200 Ingo Molnar <mi...@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > > * Dave Hansen <d...@sr71.net> wrote: > > > > > I was investigating some TLB flush scaling issues and realized > > > that we do not have any good methods for figuring out how many > > > TLB flushes we are doing. > > > > > > It would be nice to be able to do these in generic code, but the > > > arch-independent calls don't explicitly specify whether we > > > actually need to do remote flushes or not. In the end, we really > > > need to know if we actually _did_ global vs. local invalidations, > > > so that leaves us with few options other than to muck with the > > > counters from arch-specific code. > > Spose so, if you really think it's worth it. It's all downside for > uniprocessor machines. [...]
UP is slowly going extinct, but in any case these counters ought to inform us about TLB flushes even on UP systems: > > > + NR_TLB_LOCAL_FLUSH_ALL, > > > + NR_TLB_LOCAL_FLUSH_ONE, > > > + NR_TLB_LOCAL_FLUSH_ONE_KERNEL, While these ought to be compiled out on UP kernels: > > > + NR_TLB_REMOTE_FLUSH, /* cpu tried to flush others' tlbs */ > > > + NR_TLB_REMOTE_FLUSH_RECEIVED,/* cpu received ipi for flush */ Right? > > Please fix the vertical alignment of comments. > > I looked - this isn't practical. > > It would be nice to actually document these things though. We don't > *have* to squeeze the comment into the RHS. Agreed. Thanks, Ingo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/