lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Jan]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
From
Subject[RESEND PATCH v4 2/3] fs: Don't need to put list_lru into its own cacheline
Date
The list_lru structure is essentially just a pointer to a table of
per-node LRU lists. Even if CONFIG_MEMCG_KMEM is defined, the list
field is just used for LRU list registration and shrinker_id is set
at initialization. Those fields won't need to be touched that often.

So there is no point to make the list_lru structures to sit in their
own cachelines.

Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>
---
include/linux/fs.h | 9 +++++----
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/include/linux/fs.h b/include/linux/fs.h
index 811c777..29d8e2c 100644
--- a/include/linux/fs.h
+++ b/include/linux/fs.h
@@ -1479,11 +1479,12 @@ struct super_block {
struct user_namespace *s_user_ns;

/*
- * Keep the lru lists last in the structure so they always sit on their
- * own individual cachelines.
+ * The list_lru structure is essentially just a pointer to a table
+ * of per-node lru lists, each of which has its own spinlock.
+ * There is no need to put them into separate cachelines.
*/
- struct list_lru s_dentry_lru ____cacheline_aligned_in_smp;
- struct list_lru s_inode_lru ____cacheline_aligned_in_smp;
+ struct list_lru s_dentry_lru;
+ struct list_lru s_inode_lru;
struct rcu_head rcu;
struct work_struct destroy_work;

--
1.8.3.1
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-01-30 19:53    [W:0.060 / U:0.792 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site