Re: [PATCH UPDATED] percpu: use dynamic percpu allocator as the default percpu allocator

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>]

* Matthew Wilcox <matthew@wil.cx> wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 02, 2009 at 12:32:41AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > And free_percpu(NULL) does this:
> > 
> > void free_percpu(void *ptr)
> > {
> >         void *addr = __pcpu_ptr_to_addr(ptr);
> >         struct pcpu_chunk *chunk;
> >         unsigned long flags;
> >         int off;
> > 
> >         if (!ptr)
> >                 return;
> 
> Why don't we rewrite this as:
> 
> -	void *addr = __pcpu_ptr_to_addr(ptr);
> +	void *addr;
> ...
> 	if (!ptr)
> 		return;
> 	addr = __pcpu_ptr_to_addr(ptr);
> 
> if kfree(NULL) is really that important, we should avoid doing this
> extra work, not just rely on the variable being cache-hot.

Yes, of course we can fix that, the NULL fastpath needs no access to 
anything but the call parameter.

Note that my argument was different though: that assumptions about 
variable correlation are very hard to track and validate, and that 
IMHO we should be using __read_mostly generously (we know _that_ 
attribute with a rather high likelyhood), and we should group the 
remaining variables together, starting at a cacheline aligned 
address.

A sub-argument was that the boundary between global variables from 
different .o files should perhaps not be 'merged' together (on SMP), 
because the sharing effects are not maintainable: an example of 
badness is the sb_lock false cacheline sharing that Christoph's 
patch triggered (randomly).

A sub-sub argument was that perhaps we should not split .data and 
.bss variables into separate sections - it doubles the chance of 
false cacheline sharing and spreads the cacheline footprint.

	Ingo