On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 10:42:30AM +0100, David Howells wrote:
> Nick Piggin <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I'd like to be the first to propose an increase to the size of struct page
> > just for the sake of increasing it!
>
> Heh. I'm surprised you haven't got more adverse reactions.
>
> > If we add 8 bytes to struct page on 64-bit machines, it becomes 64 bytes,
> > which is quite a nice number for cache purposes.
>
> Whilst that's true, if you have to deal with a run of contiguous page structs
> (eg: the page allocator, perhaps) it's actually less efficient because it
> takes more cache to do it. But, hey, it's a compromise whatever.
>
> In the scheme of things, if we're mostly dealing with individual page structs
> (as I think we are), then yes, I think it's probably a good thing to do -
> especially with larger page sizes.
Yeah, we would end up eating about 12.5% more cachelines for contiguous
runs of pages... but that only kicks in after we've touched 8 of them I
think, and by that point the accesses should be very prefetchable.
I think the average of 75% more cachelines touched for random accesses
is going to outweigh the contiguous batch savings, but that's just a
guess at this point.
-
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]
