On Mon, Aug 22, 2022 at 09:04:59AM -0700, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2022 at 8:15 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon 22-08-22 08:06:14, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> > [...]
> > > > > struct page_counter {
> > > > > + /*
> > > > > + * Make sure 'usage' does not share cacheline with any other field. The
> > > > > + * memcg->memory.usage is a hot member of struct mem_cgroup.
> > > > > + */
> > > > > + PC_PADDING(_pad1_);
> > > >
> > > > Why don't you simply require alignment for the structure?
> > >
> > > I don't just want the alignment of the structure. I want different
> > > fields of this structure to not share the cache line. More
> > > specifically the 'high' and 'usage' fields. With this change the usage
> > > will be its own cache line, the read-most fields will be on separate
> > > cache line and the fields which sometimes get updated on charge path
> > > based on some condition will be a different cache line from the
> > > previous two.
> >
> > I do not follow. If you make an explicit requirement for the structure
> > alignement then the first field in the structure will be guarantied to
> > have that alignement and you achieve the rest to be in the other cache
> > line by adding padding behind that.
>
> Oh, you were talking explicitly about _pad1_, yes, we can remove it
> and make the struct cache align. I will do it in the next version.
Yes, please, it caught my eyes too.
With this change:
Acked-by: Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@xxxxxxxxx>
Also, can you, please, include the numbers on the additional memory overhead?
I think it still worth it, just think we need to include them for a record.
Thanks!
