[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200704100937.01399.ak@suse.de>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 09:37:00 +0200
From: Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: "Siddha, Suresh B" <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>, mingo@...e.hu,
nickpiggin@...oo.com.au, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Ravikiran G Thirumalai <kiran@...lex86.org>
Subject: Re: [patch] sched: align rq to cacheline boundary
> >
> > -static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct rq, runqueues);
> > +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct rq, runqueues) ____cacheline_aligned_in_smp;
>
> Remember that this can consume up to (linesize-4 * NR_CPUS) bytes,
On x86 just the real possible map now -- that tends to be much smaller.
There might be some other architectures who still allocate per cpu
for all of NR_CPUs (or always set possible map to that), but those
should be just fixed.
> which is
> rather a lot.
We should have solved the problem of limited per cpu space in .22 at least
with some patches by Jeremy. I also plan a few other changes the will
use more per CPU memory again.
> Remember also that the linesize on VSMP is 4k.
>
> And that putting a gap in the per-cpu memory like this will reduce its
> overall cache-friendliness.
When he avoids false sharing on remote wakeup it should be more cache friendly.
> Need more convincing, please.
Was this based on some benchmark where it showed?
-Andi
-
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