From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 26 Jul 2002 05:20:36 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 26 Jul 2002 05:20:35 -0400 Received: from e31.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.129]:22173 "EHLO e31.co.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 26 Jul 2002 05:20:35 -0400 Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 14:53:44 +0530 From: Kiran To: Rusty Russell Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@transmeta.com Subject: Re: Patch 2.5.25: Ensure xtime_lock and timerlist_lock are on difft cachelines Message-ID: <20020726145344.A18568@phreaker.net> References: <20020726125605.A2822@phreaker.net> <20020726080211.3E71E4824@lists.samba.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20020726080211.3E71E4824@lists.samba.org>; from rusty@rustcorp.com.au on Fri, Jul 26, 2002 at 05:56:19PM +1000 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jul 26, 2002 at 05:56:19PM +1000, Rusty Russell wrote: > In message <20020726125605.A2822@phreaker.net> you write: > > This patch was not meant to be a definitive fix for do_gettimeofday. > > I thought having diffrent locks on the same cacheline was bad. Atleast, > > I don't think there'd be any negative performance impact due to my patch. > > Pls correct me if I am wrong. > > Did you ever wonder why we don't declare spinlock to be ____cacheline_aligned? Yep...and for long enough...(I think..)..or there'd have been an RFC or a stupid question to lkml sometime from me :) > While it's probably justified in this case, you pay for it in a slight > increase in size... > I thought you were of the opinion that "memory is cheap" ;-) -Kiran