public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
To: "Jörn Engel" <joern@wohnheim.fh-wedel.de>
Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] Alignment of fields in struct dentry
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 23:54:04 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <200609182354.04781.arnd@arndb.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20060918212423.GB6899@wohnheim.fh-wedel.de>

On Monday 18 September 2006 23:24, Jörn Engel wrote:
> On Fri, 15 September 2006 22:44:07 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> >
> > I'd guess that a 32 byte alignment is much better here, 64 byte sounds
> > excessive. It should have the same effect with the current dentry layout
> > and default config options, but would keep the d_iname length in the
> > 16-44 byte range instead of 16-76 byte as your patch does.
> > 
> > Since all important fields are supposed to be kept in 32 bytes anyway,
> > they are still either at the start or the end of a given cache line,
> > but never cross two.
> 
> Another take would be to use a cacheline.  But I guess the difference
> between 32/64/cacheline is mostly academic, given the rate of changes
> to struct dentry.

There have been so many optimizations and misoptimizations regarding
the dentry struct over the years. See http://lkml.org/lkml/2004/5/8/117
for the almost exact opposite of this patch, along with the same discussion
that we're having now.

	Arnd <><

      reply	other threads:[~2006-09-18 21:54 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2006-09-14  9:31 [RFC] Alignment of fields in struct dentry Jörn Engel
2006-09-14 10:50 ` Jörn Engel
2006-09-14 18:33   ` Andreas Dilger
2006-09-14 21:02     ` Jörn Engel
2006-09-14 21:55       ` Andreas Dilger
2006-09-15 10:27         ` Jörn Engel
2006-09-15 13:41           ` Jörn Engel
2006-09-15 20:44           ` Arnd Bergmann
2006-09-18 21:24             ` Jörn Engel
2006-09-18 21:54               ` Arnd Bergmann [this message]

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=200609182354.04781.arnd@arndb.de \
    --to=arnd@arndb.de \
    --cc=joern@wohnheim.fh-wedel.de \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    /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