netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH,RFC] [NET] ALIGN

To: yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [PATCH,RFC] [NET] ALIGN
From: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2004 11:20:07 -0800
Cc: netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20040209.134528.28683257.yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <20040209.134528.28683257.yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 13:45:28 +0900 (JST)
YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 <yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> D: Use ALIGN() where appricable.
> 
> BTW, 
>  1. do we really need this ALIGN?
>  2. should 16 be BYTES_PER_WORD (in mm/slab.c)?

Let's hold on this patch.

Why does it want to align the table entry size to 16 bytes
anyways?

I think this is complete nonsense, and that the alignment is not
necessary.  I can't even come up with a performance reason as SLAB
is going to align things to hw cache line size anyways.

Can anybody come up with some theory ? :-)

Else let's just remove this bogus 16 byte alignment in the
kmem_cache_create() call.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>