[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080307031044.GF21185@wotan.suse.de>
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 04:10:44 +0100
From: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
To: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com,
dada1@...mosbay.com
Subject: Re: [rfc][patch 1/3] slub: fix small HWCACHE_ALIGN alignment
On Thu, Mar 06, 2008 at 06:54:19PM -0800, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > It doesn't say start of cache line. It says align them *on* cachelines.
> > 2 32 byte objects on a 64 byte cacheline are aligned on the cacheline.
> > 2.67 24 bytes objects on a 64 byte cacheline are not aligned on the
> > cacheline.
>
> 2 32 byte objects means only one is aligned on a cache line.
>
> Certainly cacheline contention is reduced and performance potentially
> increased if there are less objects in a cacheline.
>
> The same argument can be made of aligning 8 byte objects on 32 byte
> boundaries. Instead of 8 objects per cacheline you only have two. Why 8?
>
> Isnt all of this a bit arbitrary and contrary to the intend of avoiding
> cacheline contention?
No, it *is not about avoiding cacheline contention*. As such, the rest
of what you wrote below about smp_align etc is rubbish.
Can you actually read what I posted?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists