From: Paolo 'Blaisorblade' Giarrusso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
The current value was correct before the introduction of Intel EM64T support -
but now L1_CACHE_SHIFT_MAX can be less than L1_CACHE_SHIFT, which _is_ funny!
Between the few users of ____cacheline_maxaligned_in_smp, we also have (for
example) rcu_ctrlblk, and struct zone, with zone->{lru_,}lock. I.e. we have a
lot of excess cacheline bouncing on them.
No correctness issues, obviously. So this could even be merged for 2.6.14 (I'm
not a fan of this idea, though).
CC: Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Signed-off-by: Paolo 'Blaisorblade' Giarrusso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
include/asm-x86_64/cache.h | 2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/asm-x86_64/cache.h b/include/asm-x86_64/cache.h
--- a/include/asm-x86_64/cache.h
+++ b/include/asm-x86_64/cache.h
@@ -9,6 +9,6 @@
/* L1 cache line size */
#define L1_CACHE_SHIFT (CONFIG_X86_L1_CACHE_SHIFT)
#define L1_CACHE_BYTES (1 << L1_CACHE_SHIFT)
-#define L1_CACHE_SHIFT_MAX 6 /* largest L1 which this arch supports */
+#define L1_CACHE_SHIFT_MAX 7 /* largest L1 which this arch supports */
#endif
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by the JBoss Inc.
Get Certified Today * Register for a JBoss Training Course
Free Certification Exam for All Training Attendees Through End of 2005
Visit http://www.jboss.com/services/certification for more information
_______________________________________________
User-mode-linux-devel mailing list
User-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/user-mode-linux-devel
