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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox