Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2012 13:53:35 +0100 From: Attilio Rao <attilio@freebsd.org> To: Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@freebsd.org> Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r244732 - head/sys/sys Message-ID: <CAJ-FndA5aeu_rbyNh4g_bOn_hsnVMNJ%2BSTB7NLq%2BRMDismN78Q@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20121228082038.GZ80310@FreeBSD.org> References: <201212271236.qBRCawuU078203@svn.freebsd.org> <20121227124657.GX80310@FreeBSD.org> <CAJ-FndD9aDfPprwBYC%2B3T1WsfE1b4aZJENRAjo%2BhFEL1NLBKmw@mail.gmail.com> <20121227132507.GY80310@FreeBSD.org> <CAJ-FndC6Xq4EWcU203E4ucgr=jzOAutBBBkn%2BO1Qs0nL0i_Q3A@mail.gmail.com> <CAJ-FndAzqHCNtLGFH=6Cm3rshMestSZz_naF1=saMEKuX9cyog@mail.gmail.com> <CAJ-FndDeE15ygFKm1=euyvE8PW=HyUiK7WUcfgpX04Nj4GuExA@mail.gmail.com> <20121228082038.GZ80310@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 9:20 AM, Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@freebsd.org> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 08:37:24AM -0800, Attilio Rao wrote: > A> > Speaking of which, as you are here, I just found out that r241037 > A> > breaks the alignment of the structure. > A> > Infact the padding member is not updated accordingly. > A> > > A> > We don't have a param to control L2 caches, but I think that we can > A> > safely align them to the L1 cacheline for sure. > A> > Also, note that this padding is completely broken for MI requirements > A> > (it just assumes blindly 128 bytes L2 cachelines, which not always > A> > true even on i386). > A> > A> More specifically this patch: > A> http://www.freebsd.org/~attilio/bufring_pad.patch > A> > A> Of course I don't think the optimization is important in the > A> DEBUG_BUFRING on case, so the patch should be fine. > > Agreed, thanks. And thanks for removing the br_prod_bufs. > > Sorry for breaking alignment in r241037. > > And last time we talked about alignment, it was noticed that our > current CACHE_LINE_SIZE on amd64 is 128, while real size is 64. > This 128 was some optimisation proposed by Intel for some past > generation of CPUs and is no longer actual. Shouldn't we change it > back to 64? There was a recent thread on -arch about it. By Intel devs tests it seems that CACHE_LINE_SIZE=128 really gives a performance boost when NLM prefetcher is enabled while it doesn't hurt otherwise. Did you also rewview the second patch I sent? Thanks, Attilio -- Peace can only be achieved by understanding - A. Einstein
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAJ-FndA5aeu_rbyNh4g_bOn_hsnVMNJ%2BSTB7NLq%2BRMDismN78Q>