From: Waiman Long Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2019 18:52:37 +0000 (-0500) Subject: fs: Don't need to put list_lru into its own cacheline X-Git-Tag: v5.0-rc5~30 X-Git-Url: https://asedeno.scripts.mit.edu/gitweb/?a=commitdiff_plain;h=7d10f70fc198877b43d92bdcd7604279788b9568;p=linux.git 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: Waiman Long Reviewed-by: Dave Chinner Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds --- diff --git a/include/linux/fs.h b/include/linux/fs.h index 811c77743dad..29d8e2cfed0e 100644 --- a/include/linux/fs.h +++ b/include/linux/fs.h @@ -1479,11 +1479,12 @@ struct super_block { struct user_namespace *s_user_ns; /* - * Keep the lru lists last in the structure so they always sit on their - * own individual cachelines. + * The list_lru structure is essentially just a pointer to a table + * 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_inode_lru ____cacheline_aligned_in_smp; + struct list_lru s_dentry_lru; + struct list_lru s_inode_lru; struct rcu_head rcu; struct work_struct destroy_work;