From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============7317394414618756220=="
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>
To: lkp@lists.01.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] mm: page_counter: rearrange struct page_counter fields
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2022 09:04:59 -0700
Message-ID: <CALvZod4whYX+0ZuCGgyKuG-Q_9d0g7N_x+=WXOeB_1TM=3Q7vg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <YwOde3qFvne7Umld@dhcp22.suse.cz>
List-Id: <oe-lkp.lists.linux.dev>

--===============7317394414618756220==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, Aug 22, 2022 at 8:15 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon 22-08-22 08:06:14, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> [...]
> > > >  struct page_counter {
> > > > +     /*
> > > > +      * Make sure 'usage' does not share cacheline with any other =
field. The
> > > > +      * memcg->memory.usage is a hot member of struct mem_cgroup.
> > > > +      */
> > > > +     PC_PADDING(_pad1_);
> > >
> > > Why don't you simply require alignment for the structure?
> >
> > I don't just want the alignment of the structure. I want different
> > fields of this structure to not share the cache line. More
> > specifically the 'high' and 'usage' fields. With this change the usage
> > will be its own cache line, the read-most fields will be on separate
> > cache line and the fields which sometimes get updated on charge path
> > based on some condition will be a different cache line from the
> > previous two.
>
> I do not follow. If you make an explicit requirement for the structure
> alignement then the first field in the structure will be guarantied to
> have that alignement and you achieve the rest to be in the other cache
> line by adding padding behind that.

Oh, you were talking explicitly about _pad1_, yes, we can remove it
and make the struct cache align. I will do it in the next version.
--===============7317394414618756220==--