Re: [PATCH] percpu_counter: Fix __percpu_counter_sum()

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Tue, 2008-12-09 at 00:05 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-12-08 at 18:00 -0500, Theodore Tso wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 08, 2008 at 11:20:35PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > 
> > > atomic_t is pretty good on all archs, but you get to keep the cacheline
> > > ping-pong.
> > > 
> > 
> > Stupid question --- if you're worried about cacheline ping-pongs, why
> > aren't each cpu's delta counter cacheline aligned?  With a 64-byte
> > cache-line, and a 32-bit counters entry, with less than 16 CPU's we're
> > going to be getting cache ping-pong effects with percpu_counter's,
> > right?  Or am I missing something?
> 
> sorta - a new per-cpu allocator is in the works, but we do cacheline
> align the per-cpu allocations (or used to), also, the allocations are
> node affine.

Indeed we still (or again) do, see mm/allocpercpu.c:percpu_populate().

--
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/