[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1301449000.3981.52.camel@sli10-conroe>
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 09:36:40 +0800
From: Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@...el.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH]mmap: add alignment for some variables
On Wed, 2011-03-30 at 09:25 +0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 09:17:23 +0800 Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@...el.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 2011-03-30 at 09:06 +0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 09:01:22 +0800 Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@...el.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > +/*
> > > > + * Make sure vm_committed_as in one cacheline and not cacheline shared with
> > > > + * other variables. It can be updated by several CPUs frequently.
> > > > + */
> > > > +struct percpu_counter vm_committed_as ____cacheline_internodealigned_in_smp;
> > >
> > > The mystery deepens. The only cross-cpu writeable fields in there are
> > > percpu_counter.lock and its companion percpu_counter.count. If CPUs
> > > are contending for the lock then that itself is a problem - how does
> > > adding some padding to the struct help anything?
> > I had another patch trying to address the lock contention (for case
> > OVERCOMMIT_GUESS), will send out soon. But thought better to have the
> > correct alignment for OVERCOMMIT_NEVER case.
>
> I still don't understand why adding
> ____cacheline_internodealigned_in_smp to vm_committed_as improves
> anything.
>
> Here it is:
>
> struct percpu_counter {
> spinlock_t lock;
> s64 count;
> #ifdef CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU
> struct list_head list; /* All percpu_counters are on a list */
> #endif
> s32 __percpu *counters;
> };
>
> and your patch effectively converts this to
>
> struct percpu_counter {
> spinlock_t lock;
> s64 count;
> #ifdef CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU
> struct list_head list; /* All percpu_counters are on a list */
> #endif
> s32 __percpu *counters;
> + char large_waste_of_space[lots];
> };
>
> how is it that this improves things?
Hmm, it actually is:
struct percpu_counter {
spinlock_t lock;
s64 count;
#ifdef CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU
struct list_head list; /* All percpu_counters are on a list */
#endif
s32 __percpu *counters;
} __attribute__((__aligned__(1 << (INTERNODE_CACHE_SHIFT))))
so lock and count are in one cache line.
--
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