From: Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@redhat.com>
To: Mala Anand <manand@us.ibm.com>
Cc: alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, Bill Hartner <bhartner@us.ibm.com>,
davem@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
lse-tech@lists.sourceforge.net,
lse-tech-admin@lists.sourceforge.net, ak@muc.de
Subject: Re: [Lse-tech] Re: (RFC): SKB Initialization
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 14:32:52 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20020822143252.G16763@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <OF126E7130.D54285DD-ON87256C1C.0077A747@boulder.ibm.com>; from manand@us.ibm.com on Thu, Aug 22, 2002 at 12:22:34PM -0500
On Thu, Aug 22, 2002 at 12:22:34PM -0500, Mala Anand wrote:
> I would like to stress again that this patch helps only when the
> allocations
> and frees occur on two different CPUs. I measured it in a UNI system and
> did not see any impact.
Thanks, that looks a lot more complete. We discussed this on irc a bit, and
Andi Kleen pointed out that several years of hacking on skbs has probably
changed the layout significantly from the original intention of keeping all
the initializations to a cacheline or two. I also pointed out that it might
be worth looking at cache misses and perhaps adding a prefetch instruction
or two, especially during allocation when an skb will be used immediately.
Another point is to check the order of writes that gcc is generating to the
skb: if the writes are sequential, the cpu can combine them and make use of
the internal 64 bit bus to the cache. In combination with write buffers in
the cpu, that makes the writes in __kfree_skb almost free, but if the cache
lines are spread out or cold, that would explain the degredation you're
seeing. Cheers,
-ben
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-08-22 18:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-08-22 17:22 [Lse-tech] Re: (RFC): SKB Initialization Mala Anand
2002-08-22 18:32 ` Benjamin LaHaise [this message]
2002-08-22 19:02 ` Dave Hansen
2002-08-22 20:58 ` [Ibm-specweb99] " Nivedita Singhvi
2002-08-22 22:05 ` William Lee Irwin III
2002-08-23 19:09 ` Bill Hartner
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2002-08-23 14:44 Mala Anand
2002-08-23 16:39 ` Dave Hansen
2002-08-23 20:12 ` Bill Hartner
2002-08-23 20:30 ` Dave Hansen
2002-08-23 23:36 ` Troy Wilson
2002-08-23 20:51 ` Rick Lindsley
2002-08-23 22:41 ` David S. Miller
2002-08-23 23:14 Mala Anand
2002-08-23 23:38 Mala Anand
2002-08-23 23:55 ` David S. Miller
2002-08-25 16:17 jamal
2002-08-25 22:51 ` David S. Miller
2002-08-25 20:12 Mala Anand
2002-08-26 1:02 ` jamal
2002-08-26 13:04 Mala Anand
2002-08-26 19:28 ` Robert Olsson
2002-08-27 10:17 ` jamal
2002-08-27 2:53 Mala Anand
2002-08-27 13:18 Mala Anand
2002-08-27 15:49 ` jamal
2002-09-03 3:47 Mala Anand
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=20020822143252.G16763@redhat.com \
--to=bcrl@redhat.com \
--cc=ak@muc.de \
--cc=alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
--cc=bhartner@us.ibm.com \
--cc=davem@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lse-tech-admin@lists.sourceforge.net \
--cc=lse-tech@lists.sourceforge.net \
--cc=manand@us.ibm.com \
/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