On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 12:30 PM, Peter Jeremy <pe...@rulingia.com> wrote:
> On 2012-Oct-31 18:57:37 +0000, Attilio Rao <atti...@freebsd.org> wrote: > >On 10/31/12, Adrian Chadd <adr...@freebsd.org> wrote: > >> Right, but you didn't make it configurable for us embedded peeps who > >> still care about memory usage. > > > >How is this possible without breaking the module/kernel ABI? > > Memory usage may override ABI compatibility in an embedded environment. > > >All that assuming you can actually prove a real performance loss even > >in the new cases. > > The issue with padding on embedded systems is memory utilisation rather > than performance. Agree that for embedded systems, we need to be careful about proliferating this throughout the entire kernel. But for the usages thus far, Attilio is right that they should not affect UP. The ULE and callout changes made very recently are on per-CPU data structures, so for UP, that's padding just one mutex each. For the vpglock->mtx_padalign conversion, this is functionally a nop. vpglock was already doing this padding. -Jim _______________________________________________ svn-src-head@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-head To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-head-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
