netdev - Re: [rfc][patch 1/3] slub: fix small HWCACHE

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0803031209570.16049@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
Date:	Mon, 3 Mar 2008 12:10:59 -0800 (PST)
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 1/3] slub: fix small HWCACHE_ALIGN alignment

On Mon, 3 Mar 2008, Nick Piggin wrote:

> > If they are already not cache line aligned then we can make them as 
> > dense as possible. That is what SLUB does.
> 
> Because when you specify HWCACHE_ALIGN, it means that you want the object
> not to cross cacheline boundaries for at least cache_line_size() bytes.
> SLAB does this. SLUB does not without this patch.

HWCACHE_ALIGN means that you want the object to be aligned at 
cacheline boundaries for optimization. Why does crossing cacheline 
boundaries matter in this case?

--
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