Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 19 May 2010 13:50:52 +0200 | Subject | Re: [BUG] SLOB breaks Crypto | From | Geert Uytterhoeven <> |
| |
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 13:40, David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org> wrote: > On Wed, 2010-05-19 at 13:32 +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: >> Instead of having (different) defaults in sl[aou]b, perhaps we should >> just remove the defaults completely, to ensure all architectures set >> ARCH_SLAB_MINALIGN to the correct value? > > What is 'correct'? The architecture sets it to the minimum value that it > can cope with, according to its own alignment constraints (and DMA/cache > constraints, in the case of ARCH_KMALLOC_MINALIGN). > > Some architectures don't _have_ any minimum required alignment, so they > have no need to set it. If the architecture _does_ specify a minimum, > the allocators must honour it. Otherwise, they're free to do their own > thing. And slob chooses to use a smaller alignment than slab and slub > do, in accordance with its design and its raison d'être.
Currently 7 out of 20+ architectures set it. Any bets on how many are missing, but should set it?
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
-- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. -- Linus Torvalds -- 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/
| |