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 03:57:49 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 26 Jul 2002 03:57:49 -0400 Received: from samba.sourceforge.net ([198.186.203.85]:20461 "HELO lists.samba.org") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Fri, 26 Jul 2002 03:57:49 -0400 From: Rusty Russell To: Kiran 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 In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 26 Jul 2002 12:56:05 +0530." <20020726125605.A2822@phreaker.net> Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 17:56:19 +1000 Message-Id: <20020726080211.3E71E4824@lists.samba.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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? While it's probably justified in this case, you pay for it in a slight increase in size... > I want to get some nos too .. and probably will...(still waiting for my > turn to use the 4way here :-) ). But, I decided to post this patch > as a follow up to the 2.5 profiler discussion on lse-tech. > Anywayz, point taken. Next time I submit an optimization patch to you, > I'll post the measuements too. Sure! Thanks, Rusty. -- Anyone who quotes me in their sig is an idiot. -- Rusty Russell.