[ltt-dev] liburcu cache line size

[Mathieu Desnoyers]

* David Goulet (david.goulet at polymtl.ca) wrote:
> On 10-08-17 03:45 PM, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
[...]
>> Yes. The performance degradation caused by cache-line bouncing is _way_
>> worse than extra cache pressure.
>>
>
> There is something I don't understand here. Correct me if (most likely)  
> I am wrong.
>
> How cache line bouncing is affected by the cache line size? If I  
> understand correctly, cache line bounce is the problem where CPUs shares  
> data and have to fetch it from CPU0 to CPU7 (between caches). And, I  
> surely agree, this is costly!

That's ok up to here.

>
> However, if the size of the cache is bigger then the normal cache, you  
> just loose space... For arch with 64 cache line size, you loose two line  
> per structure aligned... How lowering down to 64 bytes will cause cache  
> line bouncing?

Let's take the following example:

A multiprocessor machine with 256 bytes cache line size.
The program is built thinking the cache line size is only 128 bytes.

So we allocate an array of what we hope are per-cpu variables:

 malloc(nr_cpus * sizeof(struct type));

Where struct type is __attribute__((aligned(128))

So we end up having two structures sharing a cache-line, and these will
bounce between CPUs, even though the structures are not shared: only the
cache-lines are shared, because the structures happen to be on the same
cache line.

So for allocation of individual objects which are meant to be per-cpu,
e.g. a structure controlling the per-cpu buffer, the allocator can put
one structure next to another (belonging to another cpu), thus causing
cache line bouncing.

This phenomenon is called "false sharing".

Mathieu

>
> Thanks for your help on that!
> David
>

-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
Operating System Efficiency R&D Consultant
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com