I think the flush_tlb_mm_range() code that tries to tune the
flush sizes based on the CPU needs to get ripped out for
several reasons:

1. It is obviously buggy.  It uses mm->total_vm to judge the
   task's footprint in the TLB.  It should certainly be using
   some measure of RSS, *NOT* ->total_vm since only resident
   memory can populate the TLB.
2. Haswell, and several other CPUs are missing from the
   intel_tlb_flushall_shift_set() function.  Thus, it has been
   demonstrated to bitrot quickly in practice.
3. It is plain wrong in my vm:
	[    0.037444] Last level iTLB entries: 4KB 0, 2MB 0, 4MB 0
	[    0.037444] Last level dTLB entries: 4KB 0, 2MB 0, 4MB 0
	[    0.037444] tlb_flushall_shift: 6
   Which leads to it to never use invlpg.
4. The assumptions about TLB refill costs are wrong:
	http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1337782555-8088-3-git-send-email-alex.shi@intel.com
    (more on this in later patches)
5. I can not reproduce the original data: https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/5/17/59
   I believe the sample times were too short.  Running the
   benchmark in a loop yields times that vary quite a bit.

Note that this leaves us with a static ceiling of 1 page.  This
is a conservative, dumb setting, and will be revised in a later
patch.

This also removes the code which attempts to predict whether we
are flushing data or instructions.  We expect instruction flushes
to be relatively rare and not worth tuning for explicitly.
Signed-off-by: NDave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20140731154055.ABC88E89@viggo.jf.intel.comAcked-by: NRik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Acked-by: NMel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>
Signed-off-by: NH. Peter Anvin <hpa@linux.intel.com>