[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <m2livez6vl.fsf@firstfloor.org>
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2011 10:39:58 -0700
From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>, cl@...ux-foundation.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, rientjes@...gle.com, hughd@...gle.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com, kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com,
yinghan@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Lockless SLUB slowpaths for v3.1-rc1
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> writes:
> On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 8:27 AM, Linus Torvalds
> <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>>
>> Do we allocate the page map array sufficiently aligned that we
>> actually don't ever have the case of straddling a cacheline? I didn't
>> check.
>
> Oh, and another thing worth checking: did somebody actually check the
> timings for:
I would like to see a followon patch that moves the mem_cgroup
pointer back into struct page. Copying some mem_cgroup people.
>
> - *just* the alignment change?
>
> IOW, maybe some of the netperf improvement isn't from the lockless
> path, but exactly from 'struct page' always being in a single
> cacheline?
>
> - check performance with cmpxchg16b *without* the alignment.
>
> Sometimes especially intel is so good at unaligned accesses that
> you wouldn't see an issue. Now, locked ops are usually special (and
As Eric pointed out CMPXCHG16B requires alignment, it #GPs otherwise.
-Andi
--
ak@...ux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only
--
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