[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20131119191806.GA22620@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 20:18:06 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Josh Boyer <jwboyer@...il.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Josh Boyer <jwboyer@...oraproject.org>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] core kernel update
* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 08:09:04PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > The actual value of the limit - here's the on-stack cpumask sizes of
> > the candidate range:
> >
> > 128 CPUs: 16 byte cpumasks
> > 256 CPUs: 32 byte cpumasks
> > 512 CPUs: 64 byte cpumasks
>
> So 512 / 64bytes is a single cacheline and feels like a nice cut-off
> before requiring an extra indirection and more cachelines.
>
> 64 bytes also doesn't sound _that_ big to have on-stack.
The cacheline size itself isn't necessarily super meaningful for
on-stack variables: they are rarely cacheline aligned so they will
take part in two cachelines.
> So I'd go for having the cut-off on >512, unless of course theres
> evidence 64bytes is already too much.
I'm fine with that in any case, for the other reason I outlined: it's
the highest one and we can iterate down if it proves to be bad. If we
start out too low we'll probably never know it was too low.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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