On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 10:47:45AM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2007, Siddha, Suresh B wrote:
> > Anyhow, this is a straight forward optimization and needs to be done. Do you
> > have any specific concerns?
>
> Yes there should not be contention on per cpu data in principle. The
> point of per cpu data is for the cpu to have access to contention free
> cachelines.
>
> If the data is contented then it should be moved out of per cpu data and properly
> placed to minimize contention. Otherwise we will get into cacheline
> aliases (__read_mostly in per cpu??) etc etc in the per cpu areas.
yes, we were planning to move this to a different percpu section, where
all the elements in this new section will be cacheline aligned(both
at the start, aswell as end)
thanks,
suresh
-
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/
- References:
- Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, v3
- Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, v3
- Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, v3
- Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, v3
- Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, v3
- Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, v3
- Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, v3
- Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, v3
- Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, v3
- Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, v3
[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]