linux-kernel - Re: [patch 2/2] slab: always consider arch mandated alignment

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 27 Jul 2006 08:33:01 +0300 (EEST)
From:	Pekka J Enberg <penberg@...Helsinki.FI>
To:	Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
cc:	Manfred Spraul <manfred@...orfullife.com>,
	Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 2/2] slab: always consider arch mandated alignment

On Wed, 26 Jul 2006, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> We now want to say that SLAB_HWCACHE_ALIGN is only a suggestion to be 
> disposed of if debug is on whereas an explicitly specified alignment must be enforced?

Yes and that's what we have been saying all along. When you want 
performance, you use SLAB_HWCACHE_ALIGN and let the allocator do its job. 
I don't see much point from API point of view for the caller to explicitly 
ask for a given alignment and then in addition pass a 'yes I really meant' 
flag (SLAB_DEBUG_OVERRIDE).

So Christoph, unless you can point out a specific problem with my patch, 
I'll queue it up to Andrew. Thanks.

				Pekka
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/