Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+w=401wt.eu-S1756117AbZAXHtq@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1756117AbZAXHtq (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Sat, 24 Jan 2009 02:49:46 -0500
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750961AbZAXHtf
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing>);
	Sat, 24 Jan 2009 02:49:35 -0500
Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:49977 "EHLO
	smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK)
	by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750878AbZAXHte (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Sat, 24 Jan 2009 02:49:34 -0500
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2009 23:49:12 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org,
       linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/11] quota: Improve locking
Message-Id: <20090123234912.f78d75a0.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <1232129299-22018-2-git-send-email-jack@suse.cz>
References: <yes>
	<1232129299-22018-1-git-send-email-jack@suse.cz>
	<1232129299-22018-2-git-send-email-jack@suse.cz>
X-Mailer: Sylpheed 2.4.8 (GTK+ 2.12.5; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 953
Lines: 23

On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 19:08:09 +0100 Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> wrote:

>  static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(dq_list_lock);
> +static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(dq_state_lock);
>  DEFINE_SPINLOCK(dq_data_lock);

The chances are very good that two or even three of these locks will
all get placed into the same cacheline in main memory.  The effects
will be quite bad if different CPUs (or, worse, different nodes) are
taking these locks.

For single, kernel-wide locks like these I think we should almost
always pad out to a cacheline.

With __cacheline_aligned_in_smp, rather than __cacheline_aligned. 
Because spinlocks do take space even in uniprocessor builds.

There are probably lots of existing locks which should be converted.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/