From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Yann Droneaud Subject: Re: [PATCH] IB/mlx5: Reduce mlx5_ib_wq cacheline bouncing Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2016 10:26:34 +0100 Message-ID: <1452677194.9500.27.camel@opteya.com> References: <1452594732-9573-1-git-send-email-sagig@mellanox.com> <1452609431.9500.24.camel@opteya.com> <56960E5C.5000607@dev.mellanox.co.il> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: In-Reply-To: <56960E5C.5000607-LDSdmyG8hGV8YrgS2mwiifqBs+8SCbDb@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-rdma-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Sagi Grimberg , Sagi Grimberg , linux-rdma-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org Cc: Matan Barak , Leon Romanovsky List-Id: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org Le mercredi 13 janvier 2016 =C3=A0 10:44 +0200, Sagi Grimberg a =C3=A9c= rit=C2=A0: > > Anyway, I'm not sure about the alignment of the memory returned by > > kcalloc(), I should have known by the time but don't find time to > > figure how it's handled on various SL*B allocator implementation. >=20 > Can you explain why should I worry about the alignment of kcalloc > here? Say it returns memory aligned on 16 bytes, then accessing some items in the array is going to touch 2 cachelines, defeating the purpose of the padding or the alignment attribute added to the item structure. Regards. --=C2=A0 Yann Droneaud OPTEYA -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" i= n the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html