[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160630232812.GU2279@X58A-UD3R>
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2016 08:28:12 +0900
From: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: mingo@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, npiggin@...e.de,
walken@...gle.com, ak@...e.de, tglx@...elltoy.tec.linutronix.de
Subject: Re: [RFC 05/12] lockdep: Implement crossrelease feature
On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 03:03:57PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 01:55:20PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> > +struct cross_lock {
> > + unsigned int gen_id;
>
> 4 byte hole
>
> > + struct list_head xlock_entry;
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * Seperated hlock instance. This will be used when
> > + * building a dependency chain for a crosslock, say,
> > + * commit.
> > + */
> > + struct held_lock hlock;
> > +
> > + int ref; /* reference count */
>
> 4 byte hole
>
> > +};
>
> A trivial re-arrangement would shrink this structure by 8 bytes.
Ok. Thank you.
>
> After which its still at least 64 bytes.
I will try to reduce the size as much as possible. However I think it's
not serious problem beacuse this is just a debug feature.
Thanks,
Byungchul
Powered by blists - more mailing lists