From: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
Cc: Tom Herbert <therbert@google.com>,
David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] dynamic_queue_limit.h: Make the struct ___cacheline_aligned_on_smp
Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2012 08:05:46 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1354896346.29937.43.camel@joe-AO722> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAL4Wiip12_Frb64WGk419_YApOuckTa3Jtd-nVROodLFTqvacg@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, 2012-12-07 at 07:55 -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> 2012/12/7 Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>:
> > Given that the struct will always have limit at the start of
> > a cacheline, why not make struct ___cacheline_aligned_on_smp
> > and make limit the first member?
> >
> > It could make other structs that use struct dql a bit more
> > predictable or efficient to pack.
> >
> > (netdev_queue is size reduced from 256 to 192 on x86-32)
> >
>
> No, please.
>
> Have you tested this on a range of hardware and check how it can hurt
> performance ?
No. Hence the RFC subject title and
unsigned patch.
I was wondering though about cacheline ping-pong
effects.
I noted Tom's comment back in
http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/108856/
"Also, the cache line containing the struct dql can ping-pong between
CPUs doing initiation and completion. (I know we're aiming for these to
be the same, but we can't yet assume they will be.)"
So it seemed somewhat sensible to make the
entire struct in a single cacheline.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-12-07 16:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-12-07 14:58 [RFC PATCH] dynamic_queue_limit.h: Make the struct ___cacheline_aligned_on_smp Joe Perches
2012-12-07 15:55 ` Eric Dumazet
2012-12-07 16:05 ` Joe Perches [this message]
2012-12-07 16:19 ` Eric Dumazet
2012-12-07 16:29 ` Joe Perches
2012-12-07 16:42 ` Ben Hutchings
2012-12-07 16:54 ` Eric Dumazet
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=1354896346.29937.43.camel@joe-AO722 \
--to=joe@perches.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=eric.dumazet@gmail.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=therbert@google.com \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).