[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240621190719.TeLTxI9M@linutronix.de>
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2024 21:07:19 +0200
From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
To: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...ux.dev>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Klara Modin <klarasmodin@...il.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/task_struct: Move alloc_tag to the end of the
struct.
On 2024-06-21 14:49:23 [-0400], Kent Overstreet wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 21, 2024 at 08:29:15PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > On 2024-06-21 10:20:58 [-0400], Kent Overstreet wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jun 21, 2024 at 12:27:50PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > > > The alloc_tag member has been added to task_struct at the very
> > > > beginning. This is a pointer and on 64bit architectures it forces 4 byte
> > > > padding after `ptrace' and then forcing another another 4 byte padding
> > > > after `on_cpu'. A few members later, `se' requires a cacheline aligned
> > > > due to struct sched_avg resulting in 52 hole before `se'.
> > > >
> > > > This is the case on 64bit-SMP architectures.
> > > > The 52 byte hole can be avoided by moving alloc_tag away where it
> > > > currently resides.
> > > >
> > > > Move alloc_tag to the end of task_struct. There is likely a hole before
> > > > `thread' due to its alignment requirement and the previous members are
> > > > likely to be already pointer-aligned.
> > >
> > > We sure we want it at the end? we do want it on a hot cacheline
> >
> > Well, the front is bad.
> > Looking at pgalloc_tag_add() and its callers, there is no task_struct
> > touching. alloc_tag_save()/restore might be the critical one. This is
> > random codeā¦ Puh. So if the end is too cold, what about around the mm
> > pointer?
>
> Not there, that's not actually that hot. It needs to be by
> task_struct->flags; that's used in the same paths.
But there is no space without the additional 52 bytes. Was this by any
chance on purpose?
Sebastian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists