From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 08:47:16 +0300 (EEST) From: Pekka J Enberg Subject: Re: [patch 2/2] slab: always consider arch mandated alignment In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <20060723162427.GA10553@osiris.ibm.com> <20060726085113.GD9592@osiris.boeblingen.de.ibm.com> <20060726101340.GE9592@osiris.boeblingen.de.ibm.com> <20060726105204.GF9592@osiris.boeblingen.de.ibm.com> <44C7AF31.9000507@colorfullife.com> <44C7B842.5060606@colorfullife.com> <44C7C261.6050602@colorfullife.com> <44C7C46C.4090201@colorfullife.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Christoph Lameter Cc: Manfred Spraul , Heiko Carstens , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Martin Schwidefsky List-ID: 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, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org