lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2012 08:05:46 -0800 From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> Cc: Tom Herbert <therbert@...gle.com>, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] dynamic_queue_limit.h: Make the struct ___cacheline_aligned_on_smp On Fri, 2012-12-07 at 07:55 -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote: > 2012/12/7 Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>: > > Given that the struct will always have limit at the start of > > a cacheline, why not make struct ___cacheline_aligned_on_smp > > and make limit the first member? > > > > It could make other structs that use struct dql a bit more > > predictable or efficient to pack. > > > > (netdev_queue is size reduced from 256 to 192 on x86-32) > > > > No, please. > > Have you tested this on a range of hardware and check how it can hurt > performance ? No. Hence the RFC subject title and unsigned patch. I was wondering though about cacheline ping-pong effects. I noted Tom's comment back in http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/108856/ "Also, the cache line containing the struct dql can ping-pong between CPUs doing initiation and completion. (I know we're aiming for these to be the same, but we can't yet assume they will be.)" So it seemed somewhat sensible to make the entire struct in a single cacheline. -- 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