| To: | akpm@xxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [RFC][PATCH] net drivers and cache alignment |
| From: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Sun, 08 Dec 2002 12:00:44 -0800 (PST) |
| Cc: | jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <3DF28748.186AB31F@xxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <3DF2844C.F9216283@xxxxxxxxx> <20021207.153045.26640406.davem@xxxxxxxxxx> <3DF28748.186AB31F@xxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Sat, 07 Dec 2002 15:42:00 -0800 "David S. Miller" wrote: > non-smp machines lack L2 caches? That's new to me :-) > > More seriously, there are real benefits on non-SMP systems. Then I am most confused. None of these fields will be put under busmastering or anything like that, so what advantage is there in spreading them out? When you are in the "tx path" you'll take one L2 cache miss to bring all the necessary information into the cpu's caches. Otherwise, when data is arbitrarily scattered over multiple L2 cache lines, you'll need to service potentially more L2 cache misses. This optimization has nothing to do with false data sharing amoungst multiple processors. It's about packing the data accesses optimally for specific code paths. |
| Previous by Date: | Re: [RFC][PATCH] net drivers and cache alignment, Daniel Jacobowitz |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: 2.5.50 BUG_TRAP on !dev->deadbeaf, and oopses, David Brownell |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [RFC][PATCH] net drivers and cache alignment, Jes Sorensen |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [RFC][PATCH] net drivers and cache alignment, Jeff Garzik |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |