Commit 866694af authored by Patrick Kelsey's avatar Patrick Kelsey Committed by Leon Romanovsky

IB/hfi1: Place struct mmu_rb_handler on cache line start

Place struct mmu_rb_handler on cache line start like so:

	struct mmu_rb_handler *h;
	void *free_ptr;
	int ret;

	free_ptr = kzalloc(sizeof(*h) + cache_line_size() - 1, GFP_KERNEL);
	if (!free_ptr)
		return -ENOMEM;

	h = PTR_ALIGN(free_ptr, cache_line_size());

Additionally, move struct mmu_rb_handler fields "root" and "ops_args" to
start after the next cacheline using the "____cacheline_aligned_in_smp"
annotation.

Allocating an additional cache_line_size() - 1 bytes to place
struct mmu_rb_handler on a cache line start does increase memory
consumption.

However, few struct mmu_rb_handler are created when hfi1 is in use.
As mmu_rb_handler->root and mmu_rb_handler->ops_args are accessed
frequently, the advantage of having them both within a cache line is
expected to outweigh the disadvantage of the additional memory
consumption per struct mmu_rb_handler.
Signed-off-by: default avatarBrendan Cunningham <bcunningham@cornelisnetworks.com>
Signed-off-by: default avatarPatrick Kelsey <pat.kelsey@cornelisnetworks.com>
Signed-off-by: default avatarDennis Dalessandro <dennis.dalessandro@cornelisnetworks.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/168088636963.3027109.16959757980497822530.stgit@252.162.96.66.static.eigbox.netSigned-off-by: default avatarLeon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org>
parent 00cbce5c
......@@ -46,12 +46,14 @@ int hfi1_mmu_rb_register(void *ops_arg,
struct mmu_rb_handler **handler)
{
struct mmu_rb_handler *h;
void *free_ptr;
int ret;
h = kzalloc(sizeof(*h), GFP_KERNEL);
if (!h)
free_ptr = kzalloc(sizeof(*h) + cache_line_size() - 1, GFP_KERNEL);
if (!free_ptr)
return -ENOMEM;
h = PTR_ALIGN(free_ptr, cache_line_size());
h->root = RB_ROOT_CACHED;
h->ops = ops;
h->ops_arg = ops_arg;
......@@ -62,10 +64,11 @@ int hfi1_mmu_rb_register(void *ops_arg,
INIT_LIST_HEAD(&h->del_list);
INIT_LIST_HEAD(&h->lru_list);
h->wq = wq;
h->free_ptr = free_ptr;
ret = mmu_notifier_register(&h->mn, current->mm);
if (ret) {
kfree(h);
kfree(free_ptr);
return ret;
}
......@@ -108,7 +111,7 @@ void hfi1_mmu_rb_unregister(struct mmu_rb_handler *handler)
/* Now the mm may be freed. */
mmdrop(handler->mn.mm);
kfree(handler);
kfree(handler->free_ptr);
}
int hfi1_mmu_rb_insert(struct mmu_rb_handler *handler,
......
......@@ -33,15 +33,25 @@ struct mmu_rb_ops {
};
struct mmu_rb_handler {
/*
* struct mmu_notifier is 56 bytes, and spinlock_t is 4 bytes, so
* they fit together in one cache line. mn is relatively rarely
* accessed, so co-locating the spinlock with it achieves much of
* the cacheline contention reduction of giving the spinlock its own
* cacheline without the overhead of doing so.
*/
struct mmu_notifier mn;
struct rb_root_cached root;
void *ops_arg;
spinlock_t lock; /* protect the RB tree */
/* Begin on a new cachline boundary here */
struct rb_root_cached root ____cacheline_aligned_in_smp;
void *ops_arg;
struct mmu_rb_ops *ops;
struct list_head lru_list;
struct work_struct del_work;
struct list_head del_list;
struct workqueue_struct *wq;
void *free_ptr;
};
int hfi1_mmu_rb_register(void *ops_arg,
......
Markdown is supported
0%
or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment