Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] sched/fair: Move hot load_avg into its own cacheline

[Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>]

On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 09:56:02AM -0800, bsegall@google.com wrote:
> Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> writes:

> > @@ -7402,11 +7405,12 @@ void __init sched_init(void)
> >  #endif /* CONFIG_RT_GROUP_SCHED */
> >  
> >  #ifdef CONFIG_CGROUP_SCHED
> > +	task_group_cache = KMEM_CACHE(task_group, 0);
> > +
> >  	list_add(&root_task_group.list, &task_groups);
> >  	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&root_task_group.children);
> >  	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&root_task_group.siblings);
> >  	autogroup_init(&init_task);
> > -
> >  #endif /* CONFIG_CGROUP_SCHED */
> >  
> >  	for_each_possible_cpu(i) {
> > --- a/kernel/sched/sched.h
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/sched.h
> > @@ -248,7 +248,12 @@ struct task_group {
> >  	unsigned long shares;
> >  
> >  #ifdef	CONFIG_SMP
> > -	atomic_long_t load_avg;
> > +	/*
> > +	 * load_avg can be heavily contended at clock tick time, so put
> > +	 * it in its own cacheline separated from the fields above which
> > +	 * will also be accessed at each tick.
> > +	 */
> > +	atomic_long_t load_avg ____cacheline_aligned;
> >  #endif
> >  #endif
> >  
> 
> This loses the cacheline-alignment for task_group, is that ok?

I'm a bit dense (its late) can you spell that out? Did you mean me
killing SLAB_HWCACHE_ALIGN? That should not matter because:

#define KMEM_CACHE(__struct, __flags) kmem_cache_create(#__struct,\
		sizeof(struct __struct), __alignof__(struct __struct),\
		(__flags), NULL)

picks up the alignment explicitly.

And struct task_group having one cacheline aligned member, means that
the alignment of the composite object (the struct proper) must be an
integer multiple of this (typically 1).