[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1309944338.634.162.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com>
Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2011 10:25:38 +0100
From: Ian Campbell <ijc@...lion.org.uk>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...ell.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [Q x86-64] on kernel_eflags
On Tue, 2011-07-05 at 10:47 -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 07/05/2011 03:47 AM, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> >
> > Should not every cpu has own copy of kernel_eflags? Just
> > to be consistent in style? Or this would be space waisting
> > and an optimization is done here?
> >
>
> Not specific to this particular case, but in general: a shared variable
> that used often but rarely written to will automatically replicate
> itself in the caches of multiple processors. This is the purpose of the
> read_mostly segment (writes are permitted but expected to be rare),
> which exists to make sure that a frequently written variable doesn't
> randomly end up in the cache line next to a read-mostly variable.
FWIW the variable in this particular case isn't actually marked as
__read_mostly...
Ian.
--
Ian Campbell
* Simunye is on a oc3->oc12
simmy: bite me. :)
daemon: okay :)
--
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