Re: [RFC][PATCH] net drivers and cache alignment

Andrew Morton (akpm@digeo.com)
Sat, 07 Dec 2002 15:51:36 -0800


Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> "David S. Miller" wrote:
> >
> > From: Andrew Morton <akpm@digeo.com>
> > Date: Sat, 07 Dec 2002 15:29:16 -0800
> >
> > Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > > Attached is cut #2. Thanks for all the near-instant feedback so far :)
> > > Andrew, does the attached still need padding on SMP?
> >
> > It needs padding _only_ on SMP. ____cacheline_aligned_in_smp.
> >
> > non-smp machines lack L2 caches? That's new to me :-)
> >
> > More seriously, there are real benefits on non-SMP systems.
>
> Then I am most confused. None of these fields will be put under
> busmastering or anything like that, so what advantage is there in
> spreading them out?

Oh I see what you want - to be able to pick up all the operating fields
in a single fetch.

That will increase the overall cache footprint though. I wonder if
it's really a net win, over just keeping it small.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/