[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080307022537.GC21185@wotan.suse.de>
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 03:25:37 +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 Thu, Mar 06, 2008 at 06:20:40PM -0800, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Mar 2008, Nick Piggin wrote:
>
> > > Do you have a case in mind where that would be useful? We had a
> >
> > Patch 3/3
>
> Those already have SLAB_HWCACHE_ALIGN.
>
> The point is to switch off alignment for UP? Cant we do that with
> SLAB_HWCACHE_ALIGN too since SLOB seemed to work successfully without it
> in the past?
See my next post to correct your understanding of HWCACHE_ALIGN.
> > > Note that there is also KMEM_CACHE which picks up the alignment from
> > > the compiler.
> >
> > Yeah, that's not quite as good either. My allocation flag is dynamic, so
> > it will not bloat things for no reason on UP machines and SMP kernels.
> > It also aligns to the detected machine cacheline size rather than a
> > compile time constant.
>
> Is that really a noteworthy effect?
Yes.
--
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