Re: [PATCH 1/2] Define new percpu interface for shared data -- version 3

On Wed, May 23, 2007 at 12:09:56PM -0700, Yu, Fenghua wrote:
> 
> >Has there been any measurable benefit yet due to tail padding?
> 
> We don't have data that tail padding actually helps. It all
> depends on what data the linker lays out in the cachelines.
> 
> As of now we just want to create the infrastructure (so that
> more and more people who need it, can use it).

So what we have now is space wastage on some architectures, space savings on
some, but with no measurable performance benefit due to the infrastructure
itself.  Why not push the infrastructure when we really need it, as against
pushing it now when we are not sure if it benefits?

Thanks,
Kiran 
-
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/

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: [PATCH 1/2] Define new percpu interface for shared data -- version 3
    • From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>

• References:
  • Re: [PATCH 1/2] Define new percpu interface for shared data -- version 3
    • From: Ravikiran G Thirumalai <[email protected]>
  • RE: [PATCH 1/2] Define new percpu interface for shared data -- version 3
    • From: "Yu, Fenghua" <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH] m68k: Enable arbitary speed tty support
• Next by Date: [PATCH]: UDF code style conversion to kernel style
• Previous by thread: RE: [PATCH 1/2] Define new percpu interface for shared data -- version 3
• Next by thread: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Define new percpu interface for shared data -- version 3
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[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]