Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 19 Nov 2013 20:18:06 +0100 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [GIT PULL] core kernel update |
| |
* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 08:09:04PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > The actual value of the limit - here's the on-stack cpumask sizes of > > the candidate range: > > > > 128 CPUs: 16 byte cpumasks > > 256 CPUs: 32 byte cpumasks > > 512 CPUs: 64 byte cpumasks > > So 512 / 64bytes is a single cacheline and feels like a nice cut-off > before requiring an extra indirection and more cachelines. > > 64 bytes also doesn't sound _that_ big to have on-stack.
The cacheline size itself isn't necessarily super meaningful for on-stack variables: they are rarely cacheline aligned so they will take part in two cachelines.
> So I'd go for having the cut-off on >512, unless of course theres > evidence 64bytes is already too much.
I'm fine with that in any case, for the other reason I outlined: it's the highest one and we can iterate down if it proves to be bad. If we start out too low we'll probably never know it was too low.
Thanks,
Ingo
| |