On Tue, Aug 25 2015, Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> * George Spelvin <linux@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> (I hope I'm not annoying you by bikeshedding this too much, although I
>> think this is improving.)
>
> [ I don't mind, although I wish other, more critical parts of the kernel got this
> much attention as well ;-) ]
>
Since we're beating dead horses, let me point out one possibly
unintentional side-effect of initializing just one of vmap_info{,_cache}_gen:
$ nm -n vmlinux | grep -E 'vmap_info(_cache)?_gen'
ffffffff81e4e5e0 d vmap_info_gen
ffffffff820d5700 b vmap_info_cache_gen
[Up-thread, you wrote "I also moved the function-static cache next to the
flag and seqlock - this should further compress the cache footprint."]
One should probably ensure that they end up in the same cacheline if one
wants the fast-path to be as fast as possible - the easiest way to
ensure that is to put them in a small struct, and that might as well
contain the spinlock and the cache itself as well.
It's been fun seeing this evolve, but overall, I tend to agree with
Peter: It's a lot of complexity for little gain. If we're not going to
just kill the Vmalloc* fields (which is probably too controversial)
I'd prefer Linus' simpler version.
Rasmus
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>