From: Christoph Lameter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 17:06:19 -0800 (PST)
> On Wed, 28 Feb 2007, David Miller wrote:
>
> > Arguably SLAB_HWCACHE_ALIGN and SLAB_MUST_HWCACHE_ALIGN should
> > not be set here, but SLUBs change in semantics in this area
> > could cause similar grief in other areas, an audit is probably
> > in order.
> >
> > The above example was from sparc64, but x86 does the same thing
> > as probably do other platforms which use SLAB for pagetables.
>
> Maybe this will address these concerns?
>
> Index: linux-2.6.21-rc2/mm/slub.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.21-rc2.orig/mm/slub.c 2007-02-28 16:54:23.000000000 -0800
> +++ linux-2.6.21-rc2/mm/slub.c 2007-02-28 17:03:54.000000000 -0800
> @@ -1229,8 +1229,10 @@ static int calculate_order(int size)
> static unsigned long calculate_alignment(unsigned long flags,
> unsigned long align)
> {
> - if (flags & (SLAB_MUST_HWCACHE_ALIGN|SLAB_HWCACHE_ALIGN))
> + if (flags & SLAB_HWCACHE_ALIGN)
> return L1_CACHE_BYTES;
> + if (flags & SLAB_MUST_HWCACHE_ALIGN)
> + return max(align, (unsigned long)L1_CACHE_BYTES);
>
> if (align < ARCH_SLAB_MINALIGN)
> return ARCH_SLAB_MINALIGN;
It would achiever parity with existing SLAB behavior, sure.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
