[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240630211142.kZAs9f0p@linutronix.de>
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2024 23:11:42 +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 2024-06-28 16:20:27 [-0400], Kent Overstreet wrote:
> > Kent, you said you didn't want it where it currently is. Fine. You said
> > you want it at the front next to `flags'. This isn't going to work since
> > there is no space left. You didn't make another suggestion or say how to
> > make room.
>
> It doesn't need to be on the exact same cacheline, just as near as you
> can get it.
the first possible thing would be somewhere after the scheduler.
However, what difference does it make if it s two cache lines later or
more? I don't understand the requirement "closer".
Sebastian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists