Ravikiran G Thirumalai <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 03:34:19PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Andrew Morton <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > @@ -100,9 +100,10 @@ struct futex_q {
> > > > struct futex_hash_bucket {
> > > > spinlock_t lock;
> > > > struct list_head chain;
> > > > -};
> > > > +} ____cacheline_internodealigned_in_smp;
> > > >
> > > > -static struct futex_hash_bucket futex_queues[1<<FUTEX_HASHBITS];
> > > > +static struct futex_hash_bucket futex_queues[1<<FUTEX_HASHBITS]
> > > > + __cacheline_aligned_in_smp;
> > > >
> > >
> > > How much memory does that thing end up consuming?
> >
> > I think a megabyte?
>
> On most machines it would be 256 * 128 = 32k. or 16k on arches with 64B
> cachelines. This looked like a simpler solution for spinlocks falling on
> the same cacheline. So is 16/32k unreasonable?
>
CONFIG_X86_VSMP enables 4096-byte padding for
____cacheline_internodealigned_in_smp. It's a megabyte.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
