[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20110329191007.04e8376a.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 19:10:07 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@...el.com>
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, 30 Mar 2011 09:54:01 +0800 Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@...el.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-03-30 at 09:41 +0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 09:36:40 +0800 Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@...el.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > 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.
> >
> > ____cacheline_aligned_in_smp would achieve that?
> ____cacheline_aligned_in_smp can't guarantee the cache alignment for
> multiple nodes, because the variable can be updated by multiple
> nodes/cpus.
Confused. If an object is aligned at a mulitple-of-128 address on one
node, it is aligned at a multiple-of-128 address when viewed from other
nodes, surely?
Even if the cache alignment to which you're referring is the internode
cache, can a 34-byte, L1-cache-aligned structure ever span multiple
internode cachelines?
--
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