xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [Patch] Cacheline align xlog_t

To: Andi Kleen <andi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Patch] Cacheline align xlog_t
From: David Chinner <dgc@xxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 08:23:47 +1000
Cc: David Chinner <dgc@xxxxxxx>, Lachlan McIlroy <lachlan@xxxxxxx>, xfs-dev <xfs-dev@xxxxxxx>, xfs-oss <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <87myocek4o.fsf@basil.nowhere.org>
References: <20080401231552.GV103491721@sgi.com> <47F3293C.6090708@sgi.com> <20080402054403.GF103491721@sgi.com> <87myocek4o.fsf@basil.nowhere.org>
Sender: xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i
On Wed, Apr 02, 2008 at 10:28:07AM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> David Chinner <dgc@xxxxxxx> writes:
> > 
> > This just means that the start of the structure is cacheline
> > aligned.  I don't think the internal alignment commands force the
> > entire structure to be cacheline aligned, merely pad the struture
> > internally. In that case, even though the specific internal parts of
> > the structure are on separate cache lines, there's no guarantee that
> > all the related members are on the same cacheline. Hence I'm
> > explicitly stating the exact alignment I want for the structure....
> 
> Isn't the structure dynamically allocated anyways? 
> The full type alignment really only matters for statics/globals
> where the linker can handle it.

Ah, right you are. My bad.

> For the dynamic allocation you would rather need to make sure it
> starts at a cache line boundary explicitely because the allocator doesn't
> know the alignment of the target type, otherwise your careful
> padding might be useless.

Yup. Is there an allocator function gives us cacheline aligned
allocation (apart from a slab initialised with SLAB_HWCACHE_ALIGN)?
There isn't one, right?

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
Principal Engineer
SGI Australian Software Group


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>