[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080306024904.GA27150@wotan.suse.de>
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2008 03:49:04 +0100
From: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
To: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
Cc: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>
Subject: Re: [rfc][patch 1/3] slub: fix small HWCACHE_ALIGN alignment
On Wed, Mar 05, 2008 at 12:56:33PM -0800, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Mar 2008, Nick Piggin wrote:
>
> > It started out as a SLUB regression that was exposing poor code in the
> > percpu allocator due to different SLUB kmalloc alignments. That prompted
>
> That was due to SLUB's support for smaller allocation sizes. AFAICT has
> nothing to do with alignment.
The smaller sizes meant objects were less often aligned on cacheline
boundaries.
> > The SMP flag was just an RFC. I think some people (like Christoph) were
> > being confused about the HWCACHE_ALIGN flag being for avoiding false
> > sharing on SMP systems. It would actually be also generally useful to
> > have the SMP flag (eg. see the sites I added it to in patch #3).
>
> Hmmm. We could define a global constant for that? Determine it on bootup
> and then pass it as an alignment parameter?
We could, but I'd rather just use the flag.
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists