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

On Thu, 27 Jul 2006, Pekka J Enberg wrote:
> 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).

Btw, /proc/slabinfo for UML with defconfig reveals change for only one 
cache with my patch applied. The 'dquot' cache is created by dquot_init in 
fs/dquot.c and doesn't really seem to need the alignment for anything...

				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/

---

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

• Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH] ncpfs: move ioctl32 code to fs/ncpfs/ioctl.c
• Next by Date: Re: [BUG?] possible recursive locking detected
• 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]