From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760307AbYCFW5R (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Mar 2008 17:57:17 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754541AbYCFW5A (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Mar 2008 17:57:00 -0500 Received: from relay1.sgi.com ([192.48.171.29]:32817 "EHLO relay.sgi.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753932AbYCFW47 (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Mar 2008 17:56:59 -0500 Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2008 14:56:42 -0800 (PST) From: Christoph Lameter X-X-Sender: clameter@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com To: Nick Piggin cc: David Miller , netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, yanmin_zhang@linux.intel.com, dada1@cosmosbay.com Subject: Re: [rfc][patch 1/3] slub: fix small HWCACHE_ALIGN alignment In-Reply-To: <20080306025758.GB27150@wotan.suse.de> Message-ID: References: <20080303201701.GF8974@wotan.suse.de> <20080305000637.GA1510@wotan.suse.de> <20080304.161003.129716254.davem@davemloft.net> <20080306025758.GB27150@wotan.suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 6 Mar 2008, Nick Piggin wrote: > There looks like definitely some networking slabs that pass the flag > and can be non-power-of-2. And don't forget cachelines can be anywhere > up to 256 bytes in size. So yeah it definitely makes sense to merge > the patch and then examine the callers if you feel strongly about it. Just do not like to add fluff that has basically no effect. I just tried to improve things by not doing anything special if we cannot cacheline align object. Least surprise (at least for me). It is bad enough that we just decide to ignore the request for alignment for small caches.