[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2008 14:59:53 +1100
From: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc: Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>, x86@...nel.org,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Update cacheline size on X86_GENERIC
On Friday 10 October 2008 21:22, Andi Kleen wrote:
> Nick Piggin wrote:
> >>> Anyway, GENERIC kernel should run well on all architectures, and while
> >>> going too big causes slightly increased structures sometimes, going too
> >>> small could result in horrible bouncing.
> >>
> >> Exactly.
> >>
> >> That is it costs one percent or so on TPC, but I think the fix
> >> for that is just to analyze where the problem is and size those
> >> data structures based on the runtime cache size. Some subsystems
> >> like slab do this already.
> >
> > Costs 1% on TPC? Is that 128 byte aligning data structures on
> > Core2, or 64 byte aligning them on P4 that costs the performance?
>
> The first. BTW it was a rough number from memory, in that ballpark.
> Also the experiment was on older kernels, might be different now.
>
> The second would undoubtedly be much worse.
OK. Well I don't have a really strong opinion on what to do...
I guess there is a reasonable argument to not care about P4 so
much in today's GENERIC kernel. If it is worth around 1% on tpc
on a more modern architecture, that is a pretty big motivation
to change it too...
--
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