On Mon, 24 Apr 2017 10:57:00 +0200 Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 10:49:29PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > +#ifdef HAVE_RT_PUSH_IPI > > + /* > > + * For IPI pull requests, loop across the rto_mask. > > + */ > > + struct irq_work rto_push_work; > > + raw_spinlock_t rto_lock; > > + /* These atomics are updated outside of a lock */ > > + atomic_t rto_loop_next; > > + atomic_t rto_loop_start; > > + /* These are only updated and read withn rto_lock */ > > + int rto_loop; > > + int rto_cpu; > > +#endif > > Don't you think it would make sense to place the rto_lock near the > variables it protects? And if those atomics are supposed to increase > performance, do they want to share the same cacheline with the lock? Good point! I'll update. -- Steve
