[lkml]   [2012]   [Mar]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Word-at-a-time dcache name accesses (was Re: .. anybody know of any filesystems that depend on the exact VFS 'namehash' implementation?)
On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 4:02 PM, Ted Ts'o <> wrote:
> Stupid question.  Your patch requires unaligned accesses to not have a
> heavy penalty, right?  Wasn't it the case that some generations of x86
> had pretty large penalties for aligned accesses?  Is that something we
> need to worry about?

There are basically no x86's with heavy penalties.

Sure, unaligned accesses are often *slightly* more expensive,
especially if they cross the cache access boundary (which tends to be
8 bytes on older 32-bit cpu's, and generally 16 bytes on more modern
CPUs - so it's not that they are unaligned per se, but that they cross
the bank size). But even then, it's usually not a huge deal (ie it
takes up two read slots instead of just one).

There are x86 chips that are extremely bad at unaligned SSE/MMX
accesses, but not regular words.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2012-03-03 01:21    [W:0.127 / U:7.960 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site