Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754383Ab0AVLK0 (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Jan 2010 06:10:26 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753543Ab0AVLKU (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Jan 2010 06:10:20 -0500 Received: from anchor-post-1.mail.demon.net ([195.173.77.132]:62041 "EHLO anchor-post-1.mail.demon.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754197Ab0AVLKS (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Jan 2010 06:10:18 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH] kernel/timekeeping: move xtime_cache to be in the same cache line as the lock From: Richard Kennedy To: john stultz Cc: Thomas Gleixner , Martin Schwidefsky , Ingo Molnar , Andrew Morton , lkml In-Reply-To: <1264094359.3253.11.camel@work-vm> References: <1264088361.2082.45.camel@localhost> <1264094359.3253.11.camel@work-vm> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 11:10:14 +0000 Message-ID: <1264158614.2143.6.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.28.2 (2.28.2-1.fc12) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1362 Lines: 37 On Thu, 2010-01-21 at 09:19 -0800, john stultz wrote: > > Hrm.. I'm hoping to kill off the xtime_cache at some point soon, so I'm > not sure if this patch will do much for long. That said, I'm not opposed > to it in the mean time, and when xtime_cache does get yanked, I'd > appreciate similar performance review to make sure we're not regressing. > OK, removing it will be even better. I can re-run the test anytime you like, just let me know if you've got a patch that needs testing. > > --- > > patch against v2.6.33-rc4 > > compiled & tested on AMD64X2 x86_64 > > > > > > BTW on 64 bit timespec is a 16 byte structure so the aligned 16 doesn't > > do much, and on 32bit timepec is 8bytes so this just seems to spread > > these variables across more cache lines than necessary. Any ideas what > > this is here for? > > I think it was a copy-paste from the xtime and wall_to_monotonic > definitions, which both have the same alignment. Yes, that's what I thought. In that case I think we can remove all of those attribute aligned, which should be a small improvement for 32 bit builds. regards Richard -- 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/