Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 8 Mar 2002 12:57:33 -0800 (PST) | From | Linus Torvalds <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Futexes IV (Fast Lightweight Userspace Semaphores) |
| |
On Fri, 8 Mar 2002, Alan Cox wrote: > > Can we go to cache line alignment - for an array of locks thats clearly > advantageous
I disagree about the "clearly". Firstly, the cacheline alignment is CPU dependent, so on some CPU's it's 32 bytes (or even 16), on others it is 128 bytes.
Secondly, a lot of locking is actually done inside a single thread, and false sharing doesn't happen much - so keeping the locks dense can be quite advantageous.
The cases where false sharing _does_ happen and are a problem should be for the application writer to worry about, not for the kernel to force.
So I think 8 bytes is plenty fine enough - with 16 bytes a remote possibility (I don't think it is needed, but it gives you som epadding for future expansion). And people who have arrays and find false sharing to be a problem can fix it themselves.
I personally don't find arrays of locks very common. It's much more common to have arrays of data structures that _contain_ locks (eg things like having hash tables etc with a per-hashchain lock) and then those container structures may want to be cacheline aligned, but the locks themselves should not need to be.
Linus
- 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/
| |