Re: [PATCH] x86/irq: do not substract irq_tlb_count from irq_call_count

2016-08-11 Thread Aaron Lu
On 08/11/2016 11:13 PM, Huang, Ying wrote: > Aaron Lu writes: > >> Since commit 52aec3308db8 ("x86/tlb: replace INVALIDATE_TLB_VECTOR by >> CALL_FUNCTION_VECTOR"), the tlb remote shootdown is done through call >> function vector. That commit didn't take care of irq_tlb_count so later >> commit fd

Re: [PATCH] x86/irq: do not substract irq_tlb_count from irq_call_count

2016-08-11 Thread Huang, Ying
Aaron Lu writes: > Since commit 52aec3308db8 ("x86/tlb: replace INVALIDATE_TLB_VECTOR by > CALL_FUNCTION_VECTOR"), the tlb remote shootdown is done through call > function vector. That commit didn't take care of irq_tlb_count so later > commit fd0f5869724f ("x86: Distinguish TLB shootdown interru

Re: [PATCH] x86/irq: do not substract irq_tlb_count from irq_call_count

2016-08-11 Thread Aaron Lu
On 08/11/2016 05:13 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Aaron Lu wrote: > >> This is found by LKP's cyclic performance regression tracking recently >> with the vm-scalability test suite. I have bisected to commit >> 0a7ce4b5a632 ("mm/rmap: share the i_mmap_rwsem"). This commit didn't do >> anything wro

Re: [PATCH] x86/irq: do not substract irq_tlb_count from irq_call_count

2016-08-11 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Aaron Lu wrote: > This is found by LKP's cyclic performance regression tracking recently > with the vm-scalability test suite. I have bisected to commit > 0a7ce4b5a632 ("mm/rmap: share the i_mmap_rwsem"). This commit didn't do > anything wrong but revealed the irq_call_count problem. IIUC, the

[PATCH] x86/irq: do not substract irq_tlb_count from irq_call_count

2016-08-11 Thread Aaron Lu
Since commit 52aec3308db8 ("x86/tlb: replace INVALIDATE_TLB_VECTOR by CALL_FUNCTION_VECTOR"), the tlb remote shootdown is done through call function vector. That commit didn't take care of irq_tlb_count so later commit fd0f5869724f ("x86: Distinguish TLB shootdown interrupts from other functions ca