[lkml]   [2001]   [Nov]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Pls apply this spinlock patch to the kernel

On Sat, 3 Nov 2001, Richard Henderson wrote:
> The "cache_line_pad" is useless. The __attribute__((aligned(N)))
> is completely sufficient.

I think you missed the important part: there must be no false sharing with

If you have a 4-byte entry that is aligned to 128 bytes, you have 124
bytes of stuff that the linker _will_ fill up with other things.

And if you don't want false sharing, that MUST NOT HAPPEN.

Try it. You'll see.

> Separate sections are also not needed. While you can't guarantee
> adjacency, the object file *does* record the required alignment
> and that must be honored by the linker.

It's not just alignment: it wants an exclusive cacheline. Thus the

And I'm claiming, based on past experiences with the linker, that the
padding won't guarantee anything, because the linker can re-order things
to "pack" them tighter. So the padding either has to be inside a structure
or a union (which implies a new type, and thus that the users care about
whether the spinlock is padded or not), or it needs a separate section, so
that it doesn't _matter_ if the linker re-orders anything, because
everything in that section is aligned, and as such you cannot get false
sharing even with reordering.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:12    [W:0.118 / U:0.924 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site