On Fri, May 07, 2010 at 12:35:39PM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote:
> On Thu, 6 May 2010 03:57:55 pm Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Thu, May 06, 2010 at 10:22:12AM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > > On Wed, 5 May 2010 03:52:36 am Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > What do you think?
> > >
> > > I think everyone is settled on 128 byte cache lines for the forseeable
> > > future, so it's not really an issue.
> >
> > You mean with 64 bit descriptors we will be bouncing a cache line
> > between host and guest, anyway?
>
> I'm confused by this entire thread.
>
> Descriptors are 16 bytes. They are at the start, so presumably aligned to
> cache boundaries.
>
> Available ring follows that at 2 bytes per entry, so it's also packed nicely
> into cachelines.
>
> Then there's padding to page boundary. That puts us on a cacheline again
> for the used ring; also 2 bytes per entry.
>
Hmm, is used ring really 2 bytes per entry?
/* u32 is used here for ids for padding reasons. */
struct vring_used_elem {
/* Index of start of used descriptor chain. */
__u32 id;
/* Total length of the descriptor chain which was used (written to) */
__u32 len;
};
struct vring_used {
__u16 flags;
__u16 idx;
struct vring_used_elem ring[];
};
> I don't see how any change in layout could be more cache friendly?
> Rusty.
I thought that used ring has 8 bytes per entry, and that struct
vring_used is aligned at page boundary, this
would mean that ring element is at offset 4 bytes from page boundary.
Thus with cacheline size 128 bytes, each 4th element crosses
a cacheline boundary. If we had a 4 byte padding after idx, each
used element would always be completely within a single cacheline.
What am I missing?
--
MST
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>