Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 07 Dec 2002 15:51:36 -0800 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: [RFC][PATCH] net drivers and cache alignment |
| |
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/
| |