Re: [patch 2/2] slab: always consider arch mandated alignment

On Wed, 26 Jul 2006, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> We now want to say that SLAB_HWCACHE_ALIGN is only a suggestion to be 
> disposed of if debug is on whereas an explicitly specified alignment must be enforced?

Yes and that's what we have been saying all along. When you want 
performance, you use SLAB_HWCACHE_ALIGN and let the allocator do its job. 
I don't see much point from API point of view for the caller to explicitly 
ask for a given alignment and then in addition pass a 'yes I really meant' 
flag (SLAB_DEBUG_OVERRIDE).

So Christoph, unless you can point out a specific problem with my patch, 
I'll queue it up to Andrew. Thanks.

				Pekka
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: [patch 2/2] slab: always consider arch mandated alignment
    • From: Pekka J Enberg <[email protected]>

• References:
  • Re: [patch] slab: always follow arch requested alignments
    • From: Christoph Lameter <[email protected]>
  • Re: [patch] slab: always follow arch requested alignments
    • From: Heiko Carstens <[email protected]>
  • Re: [patch] slab: always follow arch requested alignments
    • From: Christoph Lameter <[email protected]>
  • Re: [patch] slab: always follow arch requested alignments
    • From: Heiko Carstens <[email protected]>
  • [patch 2/2] slab: always consider arch mandated alignment
    • From: Heiko Carstens <[email protected]>
  • Re: [patch 2/2] slab: always consider arch mandated alignment
    • From: Pekka J Enberg <[email protected]>
  • Re: [patch 2/2] slab: always consider arch mandated alignment
    • From: Heiko Carstens <[email protected]>
  • Re: [patch 2/2] slab: always consider arch mandated alignment
    • From: Pekka J Enberg <[email protected]>
  • Re: [patch 2/2] slab: always consider arch mandated alignment
    • From: Heiko Carstens <[email protected]>
  • Re: [patch 2/2] slab: always consider arch mandated alignment
    • From: Pekka J Enberg <[email protected]>
  • Re: [patch 2/2] slab: always consider arch mandated alignment
    • From: Manfred Spraul <[email protected]>
  • Re: [patch 2/2] slab: always consider arch mandated alignment
    • From: Christoph Lameter <[email protected]>
  • Re: [patch 2/2] slab: always consider arch mandated alignment
    • From: Manfred Spraul <[email protected]>
  • Re: [patch 2/2] slab: always consider arch mandated alignment
    • From: Christoph Lameter <[email protected]>
  • Re: [patch 2/2] slab: always consider arch mandated alignment
    • From: Manfred Spraul <[email protected]>
  • Re: [patch 2/2] slab: always consider arch mandated alignment
    • From: Christoph Lameter <[email protected]>
  • Re: [patch 2/2] slab: always consider arch mandated alignment
    • From: Manfred Spraul <[email protected]>
  • Re: [patch 2/2] slab: always consider arch mandated alignment
    • From: Christoph Lameter <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [RFC][PATCH] A generic boolean (version 6)
• Next by Date: Re: the " 'official' point of view" expressed by kernelnewbies.org regarding reiser4 inclusion
• Previous by thread: Re: [patch 2/2] slab: always consider arch mandated alignment
• Next by thread: Re: [patch 2/2] slab: always consider arch mandated alignment
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]