[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1270659329.8141.40.camel@edumazet-laptop>
Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2010 18:55:29 +0200
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: Laurent Chavey <chavey@...gle.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] change dst_entry padding from using an array to using
__attribute__
Le mercredi 07 avril 2010 à 09:46 -0700, Laurent Chavey a écrit :
> what are the benefit(s) of using an array to force a struct
> element to be aligned on 64 bytes / 32 bytes boundaries
> versus using gcc __attribute__.
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> struct dst_entry {
>
> /*
> * Align __refcnt to a 64 bytes alignment
> * (L1_CACHE_SIZE would be too much)
> */
> - #ifdef CONFIG_64BIT
> - long __pad_to_align_refcnt[1];
> - #else
> - long __pad_to_align_refcnt[0];
> - #endif
> + atomic_t __refcnt __attribute__
> ((aligned(64))); /* client references */
> #undef __padding__
> /*
> * __refcnt wants to be on a different cache line from
> * input/output/ops or performance tanks badly
> */
> atomic_t __refcnt; /* client references */
> };
We dont want a huge hole (say.. 120 bytes) being not noticed.
Some machines around have 4 millions dst entries.
This deserve us being not lazy :)
Thanks
--
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