| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20091201160119.GA10826@elte.hu> Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 17:01:19 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> To: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org> Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>, michal.simek@...alogix.com, linux-next@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au> Subject: Re: problems in linux-next (Was: Re: linux-next: Tree for December 1) * Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org> wrote: > On Tue, 1 Dec 2009, Tejun Heo wrote: > > > The problem is that on UP configurations. Percpu memory allocator > > becomes a simple wrapper around kmalloc and there's no way to > > specify larger alignment when requesting memory from kmalloc. > > There is usually no point in aligning in UP. Alignment is typically > done for smp configurations to limit cache line bouncing and control > cache line use/ There is a natural minimum alignment for UP and it's smaller than the cache-line size: machine word size. All our allocators (except bootmem) align to machine word so there's no need to specify this explicitly. Larger alignment than that just wastes memory - which waste UP systems can afford the least. Ingo -- 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