Re: ZONE_PADDING wastes 4 bytes of the new cacheline

Nick Piggin
2004-10-22T00:49:41Z

Andrea Arcangeli wrote:

>
>looks reasonable. only cons is that this rejects on my tree ;), pages_*
>and protection is gone in my tree, replaced by watermarks[] using the
>very same optimal and proven algo of 2.4 (enabled by default of course).
>I'll reevaluate the false sharing later on.
>

May I again ask what you think is wrong with ->protection[] apart from
it being turned off by default? (I don't think our previous conversation
ever reached a conclusion...)