[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110316181023.2090.qmail@science.horizon.com>
Date: 16 Mar 2011 14:10:23 -0400
From: "George Spelvin" <linux@...izon.com>
To: hughd@...gle.com, linux@...izon.com
Cc: herbert@...dor.hengli.com.au, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, mpm@...enic.com, penberg@...helsinki.fi
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/8] drivers/random: Cache align ip_random better
> I'm intrigued: please educate me. On what architectures does cache-
> aligning a 48-byte buffer (previously offset by 4 bytes) speed up
> copying from it, and why? Does the copying involve 8-byte or 16-byte
> instructions that benefit from that alignment, rather than cacheline
> alignment?
I had two thoughts in my head when I wrote that:
1) A smart compiler could note the alignment and issue wider copy
instructions. (Especially on alignment-required architectures.)
2) The cacheline fetch would get more data faster. The data would
be transferred in the first 6 beats of the load from RAM (assuming a
64-bit data bus) rather than waiting for 7, so you'd finish the copy
1 ns sooner or so. Similar 1-cycle win on a 128-bit Ln->L(n-1) cache
transfer.
As I said, "infinitesimal". The main reason that I bothered to
generate a patch was that it appealed to my sense of neatness to
keep the 3x16-byte buffer 16-byte aligned.
--
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