[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0803112316090.4794@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 23:21:58 -0700 (PDT)
From: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
To: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
cc: 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 2/3] slab: introduce SMP alignment
On Tue, 11 Mar 2008, Nick Piggin wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 06, 2008 at 09:26:24PM -0800, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > Internode alignment is 4k. If you need an object aligned like that then it
> > may be better to go to the page allocator.
>
> I never got a reply about this. Again: how can the modern slab allocator
> avoid the need for internode alignment in order to prevent cacheline
> pingpong on vsmp? Because I'm going to resubmit the SMP_ALIGN patch.
You quoted my answer. Use the page allocator to allocate data that has an
alignment requirement on a 4k boundary.
> Also, the last I heard about the HWCACHE_ALIGN from you is that it didn't
> make sense... I see it's merged now, which I appreciate, but I think it is
> really important that we're on the same page here, so let me know if it
> still doesn't make sense.
I still think that the semantics are weird because it only works sometimes
and then performs an alignment within a cacheline that improves the
situation somewhat in some cases but does not give the user what he
expected.
--
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