[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2008 15:15:42 +0100
From: Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>
To: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
Cc: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Christoph Lameter <clameter@...r.sgi.com>
Subject: Re: [rfc][patch 3/3] use SLAB_ALIGN_SMP
Pekka Enberg a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 3:46 PM, Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de> wrote:
>
>> > Maybe we need to use three flags to separate the meanings ?
>> >
>> > SLAB_HINT_SMP_ALIGN
>> > SLAB_HINT_HWCACHE_ALIGN
>> > SLAB_HWCACHE_ALIGN /* strong requirement that two objects dont share a
>> > cache line */
>>
>> Possibly, but I'm beginning to prefer that strong requirements should
>> request the explicit alignment (they can even use cache_line_size() after
>> Pekka's patch to make it generic). I don't like how the name implies
>> that you get a guarantee, however I guess in practice people are using it
>> more as a hint (or because they vaguely hope it makes their code run
>> faster :))
>>
>
> At least historically SLAB_HWCACHE_ALIGN has been just a hint,
> although slab tries very hard to satisfy it (see the comments in
> mm/slab.c). Why do we need stronger guarantees than that, btw?
>
>
This reminds me a previous attempt of removing SLAB_HWCACHE_ALIGN
http://kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/christoph/patch-archive/2007/2.6.21-rc6/remove_hwcache_align
At that time Christoph didnt took into account the CONFIG_SMP thing
(false sharing avoidance), but also that L1_CACHE_SIZE is a compile
constant, that can differs with cache_line_size()
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists