On Mon, 3 Mar 2008, Nick Piggin wrote:

quoted text
> On Mon, Mar 03, 2008 at 12:17:20PM -0800, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > On Mon, 3 Mar 2008, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > 
> > > > You want two ways of specifying alignments?
> > > 
> > > I want a way to ask for SMP friendly allocation.
> > 
> > Then align the objects at cacheline boundaries by providing a value for 
> > the align parameter to kmem_cache_create().
> 
> max(num_possible_cpus() > 1 ? cache_line_size() : 0, mandatory_alignment)?

The mandatory alignment is applied anyways. You do not need to max() on 
that.

One could simply specify cache_line_size() with Pekka's patch. 
cache_line_size() could default to 0 if !SMP.

quoted text
> Then suppose we want a CONFIG_TINY option to eliminate it?

No slab allocator supports that right now. However, SLOB in the past has 
ignored the alignment in order to reduce memory use. So maybe Matt wants 
to introduce this?

quoted text
> And maybe the VSMP guys will want to blow this out to their internode
> alignment?
> 
> max(!CONFIG_TINY && num_possible_cpus() > 1 ? (is_vsmp ? internode_alignemnt : cache_line_size()) : 0, mandatory_alignment)

No the slab allocators were optimized for VSMP so that the 
internode_alignment is not necessary there. That was actually one of the 
requirements that triggered the slab numa work.

--
unsubscribe notice
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/