Re: random call_single_data alignment

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 12/20/17 12:10 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> For some reason, commit 966a967116e6 was added to the tree without
> CC'ing relevant maintainers, even though it's touching random subsystems.
> One example is struct request, a core structure in the block layer.
> After this change, struct request grows from 296 to 320 bytes on my
> setup.
> 
> Why are we blindly aligning to 32 bytes? The comment says to avoid
> it spanning two cache lines - but if that's the case, look at the
> actual use case and see if that's actually a problem. For struct
> request, it is not.
> 
> Seems to me, this should have been applied in the specific area
> where it was needed. Keep struct call_single_data (instead of some
> __ version), and just manually align it where it matters.

https://marc.info/?l=linux-block&m=151379793913822&w=2

https://marc.info/?l=linux-block&m=151379849914002&w=2

In the future, please CC the relevant folks before making (and
committing) changes like that.

-- 
Jens Axboe




[Index of Archives]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Linux ATA RAID]     [IDE]     [Linux Wireless]     [Linux Kernel]     [ATH6KL]     [Linux Bluetooth]     [Linux Netdev]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Security]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux