On Mon, 27 May 2019 12:55:31 +0200
Cornelia Huck <cohuck@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, 23 May 2019 18:22:06 +0200
> Michael Mueller <mimu@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > From: Halil Pasic <pasic@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > The flag AIRQ_IV_CACHELINE was recently added to airq_iv_create(). Let
> > us use it! We actually wanted the vector to span a cacheline all along.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Halil Pasic <pasic@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/s390/virtio/virtio_ccw.c | 3 ++-
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/s390/virtio/virtio_ccw.c b/drivers/s390/virtio/virtio_ccw.c
> > index f995798bb025..1da7430f94c8 100644
> > --- a/drivers/s390/virtio/virtio_ccw.c
> > +++ b/drivers/s390/virtio/virtio_ccw.c
> > @@ -216,7 +216,8 @@ static struct airq_info *new_airq_info(void)
> > if (!info)
> > return NULL;
> > rwlock_init(&info->lock);
> > - info->aiv = airq_iv_create(VIRTIO_IV_BITS, AIRQ_IV_ALLOC | AIRQ_IV_PTR);
> > + info->aiv = airq_iv_create(VIRTIO_IV_BITS, AIRQ_IV_ALLOC | AIRQ_IV_PTR
> > + | AIRQ_IV_CACHELINE);
> > if (!info->aiv) {
> > kfree(info);
> > return NULL;
>
> This patch looks to be independent of the previous patches?
>
It ain't a clear cut. It could have been a part of the series that
introduced AIRQ_IV_CACHELINE. OTOH I'm not sure it buys us anything
without patch 4. (I'm no expert on slab allocator so I can't tell much
about the probability of getting chacheline aligned memory if we ask for
a chacheline sized chunk of memory from kmalloc()).
Regards,
Halil
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
