Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.34 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.34;
Date:   Thu, 7 Dec 2023 06:49:18 +0000
From:   Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
To:     Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Cc:     linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-cachefs@redhat.com, dhowells@redhat.com,
        gfs2@lists.linux.dev, dm-devel@lists.linux.dev,
        linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, selinux@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/11] lib/dlock-list: Make sibling CPUs share the same
 linked list
Message-ID: <20231207064918.GZ1674809@ZenIV>
References: <20231206060629.2827226-1-david@fromorbit.com>
 <20231206060629.2827226-5-david@fromorbit.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20231206060629.2827226-5-david@fromorbit.com>
Sender: Al Viro <viro@ftp.linux.org.uk>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Dec 06, 2023 at 05:05:33PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> From: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
> 
> The dlock list needs one list for each of the CPUs available. However,
> for sibling CPUs, they are sharing the L2 and probably L1 caches
> too. As a result, there is not much to gain in term of avoiding
> cacheline contention while increasing the cacheline footprint of the
> L1/L2 caches as separate lists may need to be in the cache.
> 
> This patch makes all the sibling CPUs share the same list, thus
> reducing the number of lists that need to be maintained in each
> dlock list without having any noticeable impact on performance. It
> also improves dlock list iteration performance as fewer lists need
> to be iterated.

Probably a dumb question, but... "available" != "possible"; the code
actually goes for the latter, which avoids nasty questions about
CPU hotplug interations.  Is the sibling relation on CPUs unchanging
on CPU hotplug?