[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <a3ed82c1679e4bb5a8ab4233df38a03c@AcuMS.aculab.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2018 14:41:45 +0000
From: David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To: 'Eric Dumazet' <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
Davide Caratti <dcaratti@...hat.com>,
Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>,
Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
CC: "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH net-next 2/2] net/sched: act_police: don't use spinlock in
the data path
From: Eric Dumazet
> Sent: 16 November 2018 14:35
...
> I suggest to use a single cache line with a dedicated spinlock and these three s64
>
> spinlock_t tcfp_lock ____cacheline_aligned_in_smp;
> s64 ...
> s64 ...
> s64 ...
Doesn't this do something really stupid when cache lines are big.
If the spinlock is 8 bytes you never want more than 32 byte alignment.
If cache lines are 256 bytes you don't even need that.
Also ISTR that the kmalloc() only guarantees 8 byte alignment on x86_64.
So aligning structure members to larger offsets is rather pointless.
David
-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists