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  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]
Date:	Fri, 7 Mar 2008 04:10:44 +0100
From:	Nick Piggin <>
To:	Christoph Lameter <>
Cc:	David Miller <>,,,,
Subject: Re: [rfc][patch 1/3] slub: fix small HWCACHE_ALIGN alignment

On Thu, Mar 06, 2008 at 06:54:19PM -0800, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > It doesn't say start of cache line. It says align them *on* cachelines.
> > 2 32 byte objects on a 64 byte cacheline are aligned on the cacheline.
> > 2.67 24 bytes objects on a 64 byte cacheline are not aligned on the
> > cacheline.
> 2 32 byte objects means only one is aligned on a cache line.
> Certainly cacheline contention is reduced and performance potentially 
> increased if there are less objects in a cacheline.
> The same argument can be made of aligning 8 byte objects on 32 byte 
> boundaries. Instead of 8 objects per cacheline you only have two. Why 8?
> Isnt all of this a bit arbitrary and contrary to the intend of avoiding 
> cacheline contention?

No, it *is not about avoiding cacheline contention*. As such, the rest
of what you wrote below about smp_align etc is rubbish.

Can you actually read what I posted?

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists