From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ted Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Word-at-a-time dcache name accesses (was Re: .. anybody know
 of any filesystems that depend on the exact VFS 'namehash'
 implementation?)
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2012 19:02:03 -0500
Message-ID: <20120303000203.GH22215@thunk.org>
References: <alpine.LFD.2.02.1203021544300.28247@i5.linux-foundation.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.2.02.1203021544300.28247@i5.linux-foundation.org>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org

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?

						-  Ted