RE: [PATCH 1/2] Define new percpu interface for shared data -- version 3
- From: "Yu, Fenghua" <fenghua.yu@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 12:09:56 -0700
Has there been any measurable benefit yet due to tail padding?
We don't have data that tail padding actually helps. It all
depends on what data the linker lays out in the cachelines.
As of now we just want to create the infrastructure (so that
more and more people who need it, can use it).
It would also be interesting to check the wastage/savings on anotherlarge
cache architecture like S390 (which has a 256 byte cache line)
S390 folks or others might help get the data. I don't have other
machines
on hand.
Thanks.
-Fenghua
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH 1/2] Define new percpu interface for shared data -- version 3
- From: Ravikiran G Thirumalai
- Re: [PATCH 1/2] Define new percpu interface for shared data -- version 3
- References:
- Re: [PATCH 1/2] Define new percpu interface for shared data -- version 3
- From: Ravikiran G Thirumalai
- Re: [PATCH 1/2] Define new percpu interface for shared data -- version 3
- Prev by Date: Re: [AppArmor 01/41] Pass struct vfsmount to the inode_create LSM hook
- Next by Date: Status of CONFIG_FORCED_INLINING?
- Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Define new percpu interface for shared data -- version 3
- Next by thread: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Define new percpu interface for shared data -- version 3
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
