WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
   
 
 
Xen 
 
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 00/12] cpumask handling scalability improvements

To: "Keir Fraser" <keir@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 00/12] cpumask handling scalability improvements
From: "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 08:10:41 +0100
Cc: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>, "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 00:11:14 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <CAC60514.32CBA%keir@xxxxxxx>
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <4EA0583B020000780005C8A8@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <CAC60514.32CBA%keir@xxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> On 20.10.11 at 18:04, Keir Fraser <keir@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 20/10/2011 16:19, "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>>>> 06: allow efficient allocation of multiple CPU masks at once
>>> 
>>> That is utterly hideous and for insignificant saving.
>> 
>> I was afraid you would say that, and I'm not fully convinced
>> either. But I wanted to give it a try to see how bad it is. The
>> more significant saving here really comes from not allocating
>> the CPU masks at all for unused irq_desc-s.
> 
> Aren't we planning to dynamically allocate irq_desc-s? That would seem the
> nicer solution here.

Yes, I would hope so. But irrespective of that, allocating e.g. 512 bits
(times 4) just to use, say, 20-30 of them is bad - again, not so much
from a memory wasting pov, but rather from the fact that this
needlessly causes a larger cache and TLB footprint.

I actually think that ultimately we should try to remove all
non-dynamically allocated CPU masks (including statics, per-CPU
ones, and local variables - the latter being particularly important as
they cause pretty big stack frames, despite there now being at
most one [with the rare exception of two] of them per function,
which will continue to grow with higher NR_CPUS values).

Jan


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel