[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4CBFE3AA.10608@zytor.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 23:54:34 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
CC: Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@...el.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"hpa@...ux.intel.com" <hpa@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [tip:x86/mm] percpu: Introduce a read-mostly percpu API
On 10/20/2010 11:48 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Le jeudi 21 octobre 2010 à 14:17 +0800, Shaohua Li a écrit :
>> This isn't a previous bug. see
>> #define DECLARE_PER_CPU_PAGE_ALIGNED(type, name) \
>> DECLARE_PER_CPU_SECTION(type, name, "..page_aligned") \
>> __aligned(PAGE_SIZE)
>> the ..page_aligned is already page aligned. I add it is because it can make
>> the .readmostly section guarantee to have no cache false sharing, because
>> I add the . = ALIGN(PAGE_SIZE); before .readmostly section, and .page_aligned
>> follows, but for sure this wates some memory.
>
> A small note:
>
> The __aligned(XXX) makes sure object _starts_ at XXX boundary, not that
> following one will also use same alignment. Of course, we can argue that
> we dont try to put in PAGE_ALIGNED section small objects, but still...
>
> Explicit .ALIGN() uses in .lds are more readable IMHO...
>
There is. However, see again my previous note about SORT_BY_ALIGNMENT.
-hpa
--
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.
--
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