From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: Andrew Hunter <ahh@google.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de,
mingo@redhat.com, x86@kernel.org, Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH] x86: avoid per_cpu for APIC id tables
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2013 10:24:22 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130719082422.GA25787@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130718065249.GA17622@gmail.com>
* Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> wrote:
> [...]
>
> Also, if the goal is to pack better then we could do even better than
> that: we could create a 'struct x86_apic_ids':
>
> struct x86_apic_ids {
> u16 bios_apicid;
> u16 apicid;
> u32 logical_apicid; /* NOTE: does this really have to be 32-bit? */
> };
>
> and put that into an explicit, [NR_CPUS] array. This preserves the tight
> coupling between fields that PER_CPU offered, requiring only a single
> cacheline fetch in the cache-cold case, while also giving efficient,
> packed caching for cache-hot remote wakeups.
>
> [ Assuming remote wakeups access all of these fields in the hot path to
> generate an IPI. Do they? ]
>
> Also, this NR_CPUS array should be cache-aligned and read-mostly, to avoid
> false sharing artifacts. Your current patch does not do either.
Btw., if you implement the changes I suggested and the patch still
provides a robust 10% improvement in the cross-wakeup benchmark over the
vanilla kernel then that will be a pretty good indication that it's the
cache-hot layout and decreased indirection cost that makes the difference
- and then we'd of course want to merge your patch upstream.
Also, a comment should be added to the new [NR_CPUS] array explaining that
it's a special data structure that is almost always accessed from remote
CPUs, and that for that reason PER_CPU accesses are sub-optimal: to
prevent someone else from naively PER_CPU-ifying the [NR_CPUS] array later
on ;-)
Thanks,
Ingo
prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-07-19 8:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-07-17 19:41 [RFC] [PATCH] x86: avoid per_cpu for APIC id tables Andrew Hunter
2013-07-18 6:52 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-07-18 8:55 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-07-18 10:45 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-07-18 10:47 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-07-19 8:24 ` Ingo Molnar [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=20130719082422.GA25787@gmail.com \
--to=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=ahh@google.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
--cc=yinghai@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