Re: [PATCH 1/2] Define new percpu interface for shared data --version 3

[Andrew Morton]

On Wed, 23 May 2007 12:20:05 -0700 Ravikiran G Thirumalai <kiran@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Wed, May 23, 2007 at 12:09:56PM -0700, Yu, Fenghua wrote:
> > 
> > >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).
> 
> So what we have now is space wastage on some architectures, space savings on
> some, but with no measurable performance benefit due to the infrastructure
> itself.  Why not push the infrastructure when we really need it, as against
> pushing it now when we are not sure if it benefits?
> 

It makes sense from a theoretical POV and is pretty much a no-op in terms
of resource consumption.

The problem with the wait-until-it-hurts approach is that by the time
someone hurts from this and we find out about it, they may well be using
some year-old enterprise kernel and it's too late to fix it for them.

-
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/