[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1174413862.3101.185.camel@imap.mvista.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 11:04:22 -0700
From: Daniel Walker <dwalker@...sta.com>
To: john stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>
Cc: Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] time : SMP friendly alignment of struct clocksource
On Tue, 2007-03-20 at 10:58 -0700, john stultz wrote:
> > /* timekeeping specific data, ignore */
> > - cycle_t cycle_last, cycle_interval;
> > - u64 xtime_nsec, xtime_interval;
> > + cycle_t cycle_interval;
> > + u64 xtime_interval;
> > + /*
> > + * Second part is written at each timer interrupt
> > + * Keep it in a different cache line to dirty no
> > + * more than one cache line.
> > + */
> > + cycle_t cycle_last ____cacheline_aligned_in_smp;
> > + u64 xtime_nsec;
> > s64 error;
What was the motivation for having these (cycle_last for example) in the
clocksource structure. I recall them being added in there at one point,
but I'm not sure why.. Specifically the ones that are updated often.
Daniel
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists