>>> On 19.01.15 at 17:25, wrote:
> On Mon, 2015-01-19 at 15:42 +, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> ... to reduce padding holes.
>>
>> I also wonder whether having independent spin locks side by side is
>> really a good thing cache-line-bouncing-wise.
>
> AIUI the general wisdom is to put each spinlock
On Mon, 2015-01-19 at 15:42 +, Jan Beulich wrote:
> ... to reduce padding holes.
>
> I also wonder whether having independent spin locks side by side is
> really a good thing cache-line-bouncing-wise.
AIUI the general wisdom is to put each spinlock next to the data it
protects (I suppose on t
At 15:42 + on 19 Jan (1421678566), Jan Beulich wrote:
> ... to reduce padding holes.
>
> I also wonder whether having independent spin locks side by side is
> really a good thing cache-line-bouncing-wise.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich
> @@ -390,15 +397,12 @@ struct domain
>
> /* If
... to reduce padding holes.
I also wonder whether having independent spin locks side by side is
really a good thing cache-line-bouncing-wise.
Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich
--- a/xen/include/xen/sched.h
+++ b/xen/include/xen/sched.h
@@ -306,6 +306,9 @@ struct domain
{
domid_t domain
