[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180412081323.GV4082@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2018 10:13:23 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Andy Whitcroft <apw@...onical.com>, yuankuiz@...eaurora.org,
Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: Add a --strict test for structs with bool
member definitions
On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 11:42:20PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> I personally do not find a significant issue with
> uncontrolled sizes of bool in kernel structs as
> all of the kernel structs are transitory and not
> written out to storage.
People that care about cache locality, false sharing and other such
things really care about structure layout.
Growing a structure into another cacheline can be a significant
performance hit -- cache misses hurt.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists