From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:57797) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YxHVN-0003Fe-BJ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 26 May 2015 12:15:02 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YxHVM-0004IB-Jt for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 26 May 2015 12:15:01 -0400 Message-ID: <55649BD1.3000709@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 26 May 2015 18:14:09 +0200 From: Max Reitz MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <74e0e0ce58935bf1c285bf484e8f3beb0e3c8f66.1431967209.git.berto@igalia.com> <55649AE3.3070404@redhat.com> <55649B83.7060900@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <55649B83.7060900@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 3/3] qcow2: reorder fields in Qcow2CachedTable to reduce padding List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Eric Blake , Alberto Garcia , qemu-devel@nongnu.org Cc: Kevin Wolf , Stefan Hajnoczi , qemu-block@nongnu.org On 26.05.2015 18:12, Eric Blake wrote: > On 05/26/2015 10:10 AM, Max Reitz wrote: >> On 18.05.2015 18:48, Alberto Garcia wrote: >>> Changing the current ordering saves 8 bytes per cache entry in x86_64. >> Hm, not seven? >> >>> Signed-off-by: Alberto Garcia >>> --- >>> block/qcow2-cache.c | 2 +- >>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/block/qcow2-cache.c b/block/qcow2-cache.c >>> index a215f5b..43590ff 100644 >>> --- a/block/qcow2-cache.c >>> +++ b/block/qcow2-cache.c >>> @@ -31,9 +31,9 @@ >>> typedef struct Qcow2CachedTable { >>> int64_t offset; >>> - bool dirty; >>> uint64_t lru_counter; >>> int ref; >>> + bool dirty; >>> } Qcow2CachedTable; >>> struct Qcow2Cache { >> With "7" above, or an explanation why it actually is 8: > Old layout: > > 0-7 offset > 8 dirty > 9-15 padding > 16-23 lru_counter > 24-27 dirty > 28-31 padding > > New layout: > > 0-7 offset > 8-15 lru_counter > 16-19 ref > 20 dirty > 21-23 padding > > It indeed saves 8 bytes. Oh, I forgot about the padding at the end. Thanks! Max >> Reviewed-by: Max Reitz >> >>