Commit 7d10f70f authored by Waiman Long's avatar Waiman Long Committed by Linus Torvalds

fs: Don't need to put list_lru into its own cacheline

The list_lru structure is essentially just a pointer to a table of
per-node LRU lists.  Even if CONFIG_MEMCG_KMEM is defined, the list
field is just used for LRU list registration and shrinker_id is set at
initialization.  Those fields won't need to be touched that often.

So there is no point to make the list_lru structures to sit in their own
cachelines.
Signed-off-by: default avatarWaiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: default avatarDave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: default avatarLinus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
parent 1dbd449c
...@@ -1479,11 +1479,12 @@ struct super_block { ...@@ -1479,11 +1479,12 @@ struct super_block {
struct user_namespace *s_user_ns; struct user_namespace *s_user_ns;
/* /*
* Keep the lru lists last in the structure so they always sit on their * The list_lru structure is essentially just a pointer to a table
* own individual cachelines. * of per-node lru lists, each of which has its own spinlock.
* There is no need to put them into separate cachelines.
*/ */
struct list_lru s_dentry_lru ____cacheline_aligned_in_smp; struct list_lru s_dentry_lru;
struct list_lru s_inode_lru ____cacheline_aligned_in_smp; struct list_lru s_inode_lru;
struct rcu_head rcu; struct rcu_head rcu;
struct work_struct destroy_work; struct work_struct destroy_work;
......
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