On Tue, 24 Apr 2007, Siddha, Suresh B wrote: > 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)
I would not call this a per cpu area. It is used by multiple cpus it seems. But for 0.5%? on what benchmark? Is is really worth it? - 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/
