lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Dec]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: problems in linux-next (Was: Re: linux-next: Tree for December 1)

* Christoph Lameter <cl@linux-foundation.org> wrote:

> On Tue, 1 Dec 2009, Tejun Heo wrote:
>
> > The problem is that on UP configurations. Percpu memory allocator
> > becomes a simple wrapper around kmalloc and there's no way to
> > specify larger alignment when requesting memory from kmalloc.
>
> There is usually no point in aligning in UP. Alignment is typically
> done for smp configurations to limit cache line bouncing and control
> cache line use/

There is a natural minimum alignment for UP and it's smaller than the
cache-line size: machine word size. All our allocators (except bootmem)
align to machine word so there's no need to specify this explicitly.

Larger alignment than that just wastes memory - which waste UP systems
can afford the least.

Ingo


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-12-01 17:05    [W:0.068 / U:0.164 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site