RE: [PATCH] PER_CPU [4/4] - PER_CPU-irq_stat

[Shai Fultheim]

"Andrew Morton" <akpm@xxxxxxxx>:
> 
> "Shai Fultheim" <shai@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > > diff -Nru a/kernel/softirq.c b/kernel/softirq.c
> > > > --- a/kernel/softirq.c	2004-07-09 01:34:13 -07:00
> > > > +++ b/kernel/softirq.c	2004-07-09 01:34:13 -07:00
> > > > @@ -36,8 +36,8 @@
> > > >   */
> > > >
> > > >  #ifndef __ARCH_IRQ_STAT
> > > > -irq_cpustat_t irq_stat[NR_CPUS] ____cacheline_aligned;
> > > > -EXPORT_SYMBOL(irq_stat);
> > > > +DEFINE_PER_CPU(irq_cpustat_t, irq_stat)
> > > ____cacheline_maxaligned_in_smp;
> > > > +EXPORT_PER_CPU_SYMBOL(irq_stat);
> > > >  #endif
> > >
> > > Is there a need for the cacheline alignment? We want to keep that per
> > > cpu data area as packed as possible, we only want to explicitly pad if
> > > we need to (eg other cpus are accessing that variable a lot).
> > >
> > > Also it looks like we will have to push the above change into the
> other
> > > architectures.
> > >
> > > Anton
> > >
> >
> > IMHO, we want to keep irq_stat aligned from performance perspectives.
> You
> > can never know if the info before and after it in the per-cpu area are
> going
> > to be cached (and thefore crossing cache-line boundary will cost us
> more).
> >
> > Anyhow, since that also accesses by other CPUs (not a lot...), I think
> it's
> > better to keep it aligned (the utilization of per-cpu areas is so low
> now
> > that it doesn't really matter).
> >
> 
> That seems a bit debatable.
> 
> But anyway, as Anton points out, the patch breaks !x86 architectures.
> 

It seems that I missed that, will send update soon.
 
-----------------
Shai Fultheim
Scalex86.org

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/