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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 15:53:15 +0200 From: "Pekka Enberg" <penberg@...helsinki.fi> To: "Nick Piggin" <npiggin@...e.de> Cc: "Eric Dumazet" <dada1@...mosbay.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org, "Linux Kernel Mailing List" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com, "David Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, "Christoph Lameter" <clameter@...r.sgi.com> Subject: Re: [rfc][patch 3/3] use SLAB_ALIGN_SMP Hi, On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 3:46 PM, Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de> wrote: > > Maybe we need to use three flags to separate the meanings ? > > > > SLAB_HINT_SMP_ALIGN > > SLAB_HINT_HWCACHE_ALIGN > > SLAB_HWCACHE_ALIGN /* strong requirement that two objects dont share a > > cache line */ > > Possibly, but I'm beginning to prefer that strong requirements should > request the explicit alignment (they can even use cache_line_size() after > Pekka's patch to make it generic). I don't like how the name implies > that you get a guarantee, however I guess in practice people are using it > more as a hint (or because they vaguely hope it makes their code run > faster :)) At least historically SLAB_HWCACHE_ALIGN has been just a hint, although slab tries very hard to satisfy it (see the comments in mm/slab.c). Why do we need stronger guarantees than that, btw? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists