This past week I was playing around with that pahole tool
(http://oops.ghostprotocols.net:81/acme/dwarves/) and looking at the
size of various struct in the kernel. I was surprised by the size of
the task_struct on x86_64, approaching 4K. I looked through the
fields in task_struct and found that a number of them were declared as
"unsigned long" rather than "unsigned int" despite them appearing okay
as 32-bit sized fields. On x86_64 "unsigned long" ends up being 8
bytes in size and forces 8 byte alignment. Is there a reason there
a reason they are "unsigned long"?
The patch below drops the size of the struct from 3808 bytes (60
64-byte cachelines) to 3760 bytes (59 64-byte cachelines). A couple
other fields in the task struct take a signficant amount of space:
struct thread_struct thread; 688
struct held_lock held_locks[30]; 1680
CONFIG_LOCKDEP is turned on in the .config
-Will
From: William Cohen <[email protected]>
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2007 11:14:13 -0500
> This past week I was playing around with that pahole tool
> (http://oops.ghostprotocols.net:81/acme/dwarves/) and looking at the
> size of various struct in the kernel. I was surprised by the size of
> the task_struct on x86_64, approaching 4K. I looked through the
> fields in task_struct and found that a number of them were declared as
> "unsigned long" rather than "unsigned int" despite them appearing okay
> as 32-bit sized fields. On x86_64 "unsigned long" ends up being 8
> bytes in size and forces 8 byte alignment. Is there a reason there
> a reason they are "unsigned long"?
I think at one point we used the atomic bit operations to operate on
things like tsk->flags, and those interfaces require unsigned long as
the type.
That doesn't appear to be the case any longer, so at a minimum
your tsk->flags conversion to unsigned int should be ok.
On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 12:19:45 -0800 (PST)
David Miller <[email protected]> wrote:
> From: William Cohen <[email protected]>
> Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2007 11:14:13 -0500
>
> > This past week I was playing around with that pahole tool
> > (http://oops.ghostprotocols.net:81/acme/dwarves/) and looking at the
> > size of various struct in the kernel. I was surprised by the size of
> > the task_struct on x86_64, approaching 4K. I looked through the
> > fields in task_struct and found that a number of them were declared as
> > "unsigned long" rather than "unsigned int" despite them appearing okay
> > as 32-bit sized fields. On x86_64 "unsigned long" ends up being 8
> > bytes in size and forces 8 byte alignment. Is there a reason there
> > a reason they are "unsigned long"?
>
> I think at one point we used the atomic bit operations to operate on
> things like tsk->flags, and those interfaces require unsigned long as
> the type.
>
> That doesn't appear to be the case any longer, so at a minimum
> your tsk->flags conversion to unsigned int should be ok.
Yeah, afacit everything in there is OK and happily all the
converted-to-32-bit quantities happen to be contiguous with other 32-bit
quantities.
Most architectures' bitops functions take unsigned long * so if anyone is
using bitops on these things we should get to hear about it.
On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 11:14:13AM -0500, William Cohen wrote:
> This past week I was playing around with that pahole tool
> (http://oops.ghostprotocols.net:81/acme/dwarves/) and looking at the
> size of various struct in the kernel. I was surprised by the size of
> the task_struct on x86_64, approaching 4K. I looked through the
> fields in task_struct and found that a number of them were declared as
> "unsigned long" rather than "unsigned int" despite them appearing okay
> as 32-bit sized fields. On x86_64 "unsigned long" ends up being 8
> bytes in size and forces 8 byte alignment. Is there a reason there
> a reason they are "unsigned long"?
>
> The patch below drops the size of the struct from 3808 bytes (60
> 64-byte cachelines) to 3760 bytes (59 64-byte cachelines). A couple
> other fields in the task struct take a signficant amount of space:
>
> struct thread_struct thread; 688
> struct held_lock held_locks[30]; 1680
>
> CONFIG_LOCKDEP is turned on in the .config
I sent this .. http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/1/2/299
last month which shrinks task struct by 480 bytes when lockdep
is enabled. Ingo acked it, but then it fell on the floor.
Here it is again..
Dave
Shrink the held_lock struct by using bitfields.
This shrinks task_struct on lockdep enabled kernels by 480 bytes.
Signed-off-by: Dave Jones <[email protected]>
diff --git a/include/linux/lockdep.h b/include/linux/lockdep.h
index ea097dd..ba81cce 100644
--- a/include/linux/lockdep.h
+++ b/include/linux/lockdep.h
@@ -175,11 +175,11 @@ struct held_lock {
* The following field is used to detect when we cross into an
* interrupt context:
*/
- int irq_context;
- int trylock;
- int read;
- int check;
- int hardirqs_off;
+ unsigned char irq_context:1;
+ unsigned char trylock:1;
+ unsigned char read:2;
+ unsigned char check:1;
+ unsigned char hardirqs_off:1;
};
/*
--
http://www.codemonkey.org.uk
On Sat, 10 Feb 2007, Dave Jones wrote:
>
> Shrink the held_lock struct by using bitfields.
> This shrinks task_struct on lockdep enabled kernels by 480 bytes.
Are we sure that there are no users that depend on accessing the different
fields under different locks?
Having them as separate "int" fields means that they don't have any
interaction, and normal cache coherency will "just work". Once they are
fields in the same word in memory, updating one field automatically will
do a read-write cycle on the other fields, and if _they_ are updated by
interrupts or other CPU's at the same time, a write can get lost..
So I'd like this to be ack'ed by Ingo.
Ingo?
Linus
---
> Signed-off-by: Dave Jones <[email protected]>
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/lockdep.h b/include/linux/lockdep.h
> index ea097dd..ba81cce 100644
> --- a/include/linux/lockdep.h
> +++ b/include/linux/lockdep.h
> @@ -175,11 +175,11 @@ struct held_lock {
> * The following field is used to detect when we cross into an
> * interrupt context:
> */
> - int irq_context;
> - int trylock;
> - int read;
> - int check;
> - int hardirqs_off;
> + unsigned char irq_context:1;
> + unsigned char trylock:1;
> + unsigned char read:2;
> + unsigned char check:1;
> + unsigned char hardirqs_off:1;
> };
>
> /*
>
> --
> http://www.codemonkey.org.uk
>