mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
To: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>
Cc: Robert Richter <rric@kernel.org>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Robert Richter <rrichter@cavium.com>,
	Tirumalesh Chalamarla <tchalamarla@cavium.com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: Increase the max granular size
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2015 10:32:15 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20151105103214.GP7637@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20151105044014.GB20374@js1304-P5Q-DELUXE>

On Thu, Nov 05, 2015 at 01:40:14PM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 07:59:48PM +0200, Robert Richter wrote:
> > From: Tirumalesh Chalamarla <tchalamarla@cavium.com>
> > 
> > Increase the standard cacheline size to avoid having locks in the same
> > cacheline.
> > 
> > Cavium's ThunderX core implements cache lines of 128 byte size. With
> > current granulare size of 64 bytes (L1_CACHE_SHIFT=6) two locks could
> > share the same cache line leading a performance degradation.
> > Increasing the size fixes that.
> 
> Beside, slab-side bug, I don't think this argument is valid.
> Even if this change is applied, statically allocated spinlock could
> share the same cache line.

The benchmarks didn't show any difference with or without this patch
applied. What convinced me to apply it was this email:

http://lkml.kernel.org/g/CAOZdJXUiRMAguDV+HEJqPg57MyBNqEcTyaH+ya=U93NHb-pdJA@mail.gmail.com

On ARM we have a notion of cache writeback granule (CWG) which tells us
"the maximum size of memory that can be overwritten as a result of the
eviction of a cache entry that has had a memory location in it
modified". What we actually needed was ARCH_DMA_MINALIGN to be 128
(currently defined to the L1_CACHE_BYTES value). However, this wouldn't
have fixed the KMALLOC_MIN_SIZE, unless we somehow generate different
kmalloc_caches[] and kmalloc_dma_caches[] and probably introduce a
size_dma_index[].

> If two locks should not share the same cache line, you'd better to use
> compiler attribute such as ____cacheline_aligned_in_smp in appropriate
> place.

We could decouple SMP_CACHE_BYTES from L1_CACHE_BYTES but see above for
the other issue we had to solve.

-- 
Catalin

  reply	other threads:[~2015-11-05 10:32 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-09-22 17:59 Robert Richter
2015-09-22 18:29 ` Will Deacon
2015-09-25 14:45   ` Robert Richter
2015-09-25 16:31     ` Tirumalesh Chalamarla
2015-10-10 17:39 ` Timur Tabi
2015-10-12  9:16   ` Will Deacon
2015-10-16 19:57 ` Timur Tabi
2015-10-28 19:09 ` Catalin Marinas
2015-11-03 11:07   ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2015-11-03 12:05     ` Catalin Marinas
2015-11-03 14:38       ` Catalin Marinas
2015-11-03 14:55         ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2015-11-03 18:50           ` Catalin Marinas
2015-11-03 23:33             ` Christoph Lameter
2015-11-04 12:36               ` Catalin Marinas
2015-11-04 13:53                 ` Christoph Lameter
2015-11-04 14:54                   ` Catalin Marinas
2015-11-04 15:28                     ` Christoph Lameter
2015-11-04 15:39                       ` Catalin Marinas
2015-11-05  4:31                         ` Joonsoo Kim
2015-11-05 11:50                           ` [PATCH] mm: slab: Only move management objects off-slab for sizes larger than KMALLOC_MIN_SIZE Catalin Marinas
2015-11-05 13:31                             ` Andrew Morton
2015-11-05 16:08                               ` Catalin Marinas
2015-11-06 13:00                                 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2015-11-05 17:39                             ` Christoph Lameter
2015-11-05  4:40 ` [PATCH] arm64: Increase the max granular size Joonsoo Kim
2015-11-05 10:32   ` Catalin Marinas [this message]
2015-11-05 11:45     ` Joonsoo Kim
2015-11-05 12:17       ` Catalin Marinas
2015-11-09  7:41         ` Joonsoo Kim
2015-11-09 18:36           ` Catalin Marinas
2015-11-10  0:19             ` Joonsoo Kim

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20151105103214.GP7637@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com \
    --to=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=rric@kernel.org \
    --cc=rrichter@cavium.com \
    --cc=tchalamarla@cavium.com \
    --cc=will.deacon@arm.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®