lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Nov]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 3/4] module: use a structure to encapsulate layout.
Date
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> writes:
> On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 02:53:56PM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
>> diff --git a/kernel/module.c b/kernel/module.c
>> index 14b224967e7b..a0a3d6d9d5e8 100644
>> --- a/kernel/module.c
>> +++ b/kernel/module.c
>> @@ -108,13 +108,6 @@ static LIST_HEAD(modules);
>> * Use a latched RB-tree for __module_address(); this allows us to use
>> * RCU-sched lookups of the address from any context.
>> *
>> - * Because modules have two address ranges: init and core, we need two
>> - * latch_tree_nodes entries. Therefore we need the back-pointer from
>> - * mod_tree_node.
>
> We still have the back-pointers, so removing all of that seems a little
> excessive.

Well, I thought about filling the hole with a "am_init" flag, and
putting the layouts in a [2] array, but seemed too cutesy.

>> - *
>> - * Because init ranges are short lived we mark them unlikely and have placed
>> - * them outside the critical cacheline in struct module.
>
> This information also isn't preserved.

Ah yeah, Intel still use 64-byte cachelines. Still, this comment covers
what we actually care about:

+#ifdef CONFIG_MODULES_TREE_LOOKUP
+/* Only touch one cacheline for common rbtree-for-core-layout case. */
+#define __module_layout_align ____cacheline_aligned
+#else
+#define __module_layout_align
+#endif

> Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>

Thanks!
Rusty.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-11-10 03:21    [W:0.050 / U:0.052 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site