From: Paul M. <pm...@en...> - 2002-07-12 17:36:21
|
> >Note: measurements on 2.4 do not make sense; reduction of cacheline >bouncing between 2.4 and 2.5 will change the results anyway and >if any of these patches are going to be applied to 2.4, reduction of >cacheline bouncing on ->d_count is going to go in before that one. I think there are some other possibilities for cache-bounce removal in struct dentry. The most obvious one is d_vfs_flags - not only does it get written to on every d_lookup (to set DCACHE_REFERENCED) but it also shares a cache line (on Pentium IV) with d_op, d_iname and part of d_name (along with d_sb and d_fsdata, but these don't seem to be so crucial). Some quick stats gathering suggested that DCACHE_REFERENCED is already set 95%-98% of the time, so this cache bounce is not even doing anything useful. I submitted this patch a while ago making the DCACHE_REFERENCED bit setting be conditional on it not being already set, which didn't generate any interest. One problem with this patch would be the additional branch prediction misses (on some architectures?) that would work against the benefits of not dirtying a cache line. Maybe we should have a function definition something like the following: static __inline__ void __ensure_bit_set(int nr, volatile unsigned long * addr) { #if defined (CONFIG_BIG_SMP) || defined(ARCH_HAVE_PREDICATED_WRITE) if(!test_bit(nr, addr)) #endif set_bit(nr, addr); } so that architectures that support conditional writes (arm and ia64?) and for SMP systems with enough processors that cache-bouncing is an issue, the test can be performed, and for others where the branch prediction miss would hurt us more than the cache dirtying it would just do it unconditionally. --- linux-2.5.13/fs/dcache.c Thu May 2 17:22:42 2002 +++ linux-2.5.13-nodref/fs/dcache.c Sat May 4 16:36:38 2002 @@ -883,7 +883,8 @@ if (memcmp(dentry->d_name.name, str, len)) continue; } - dentry->d_vfs_flags |= DCACHE_REFERENCED; + if(!(dentry->d_vfs_flags & DCACHE_REFERENCED)) + dentry->d_vfs_flags |= DCACHE_REFERENCED; return dentry; } return NULL; Perhaps another solution is to rearrange struct dentry - put the volatile stuff in one cache line (or set of lines), and the constant stuff in another. So probably d_count, d_lru and d_vfs_flags would be in the volatile line, and most other stuff in the the other. It would probably make sense to ensure that d_name and d_iname share a cache line if possible, even on smaller cache-line architectures, and maybe also d_hash and d_parent on that same line. Paul |