![]() | ||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
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 majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | |||||||||
| Last update: 2006-07-27 05:49 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | ||||||||||