diff options
authorWaiman Long <longman@redhat.com>2019-01-30 13:52:37 -0500
committerLinus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>2019-01-30 11:02:11 -0800
commit7d10f70fc198877b43d92bdcd7604279788b9568 (patch)
parent1dbd449c9943e3145148cc893c2461b72ba6fef0 (diff)
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 <longman@redhat.com> Reviewed-by: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
1 files changed, 5 insertions, 4 deletions
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;