From: Richard Kennedy <richard@rsk.demon.co.uk>
To: john stultz <johnstul@us.ibm.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kernel/timekeeping: move xtime_cache to be in the same cache line as the lock
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 11:10:14 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1264158614.2143.6.camel@localhost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1264094359.3253.11.camel@work-vm>
On Thu, 2010-01-21 at 09:19 -0800, john stultz wrote:
>
> Hrm.. I'm hoping to kill off the xtime_cache at some point soon, so I'm
> not sure if this patch will do much for long. That said, I'm not opposed
> to it in the mean time, and when xtime_cache does get yanked, I'd
> appreciate similar performance review to make sure we're not regressing.
>
OK, removing it will be even better. I can re-run the test anytime you
like, just let me know if you've got a patch that needs testing.
> > ---
> > patch against v2.6.33-rc4
> > compiled & tested on AMD64X2 x86_64
> >
> >
> > BTW on 64 bit timespec is a 16 byte structure so the aligned 16 doesn't
> > do much, and on 32bit timepec is 8bytes so this just seems to spread
> > these variables across more cache lines than necessary. Any ideas what
> > this is here for?
>
> I think it was a copy-paste from the xtime and wall_to_monotonic
> definitions, which both have the same alignment.
Yes, that's what I thought. In that case I think we can remove all of
those attribute aligned, which should be a small improvement for 32 bit
builds.
regards
Richard
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-01-22 11:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-01-21 15:39 [PATCH] kernel/timekeeping: move xtime_cache to be in the same cache line as the lock Richard Kennedy
2010-01-21 17:19 ` john stultz
2010-01-22 11:10 ` Richard Kennedy [this message]
2010-01-26 23:28 ` Andrew Morton
2010-01-27 12:10 ` Richard Kennedy
2010-01-28 20:16 ` john stultz
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1264158614.2143.6.camel@localhost \
--to=richard@rsk.demon.co.uk \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=johnstul@us.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=schwidefsky@de.ibm.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.