On Thu, 2017-04-06 at 16:03 +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> Alistair Popple writes:
>
> > On Wed, 23 Nov 2016 10:40:36 PM Balbir Singh wrote:
> > >
> > > > But overall I guess it's OK. We'd want to do a quick benchmark to make
> > > > sure it's not adding any overhead.
> > >
> > > OK.. I'll tr
Alistair Popple writes:
> On Wed, 23 Nov 2016 10:40:36 PM Balbir Singh wrote:
>>
>> > But overall I guess it's OK. We'd want to do a quick benchmark to make
>> > sure it's not adding any overhead.
>>
>> OK.. I'll try and find a benchmark and run it with traces disabled.
>
> For what's it's worth
On Wed, 23 Nov 2016 10:40:36 PM Balbir Singh wrote:
>
> > But overall I guess it's OK. We'd want to do a quick benchmark to make
> > sure it's not adding any overhead.
>
> OK.. I'll try and find a benchmark and run it with traces disabled.
For what's it's worth I didn't notice any slow down runnin
On 23/11/16 21:15, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> Balbir Singh writes:
>
>> Just a quick patch to trace tlbie(l)'s. The idea being that it can be
>> enabled when we suspect corruption or when we need to see if we are doing
>> the right thing during flush. I think the format can be enhanced to
>> mak
Balbir Singh writes:
> Just a quick patch to trace tlbie(l)'s. The idea being that it can be
> enabled when we suspect corruption or when we need to see if we are doing
> the right thing during flush. I think the format can be enhanced to
> make it nicer (expand the RB/RS/IS/L cases in more detai
Just a quick patch to trace tlbie(l)'s. The idea being that it can be
enabled when we suspect corruption or when we need to see if we are doing
the right thing during flush. I think the format can be enhanced to
make it nicer (expand the RB/RS/IS/L cases in more detail). For now I am
sharing the i
