From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([198.137.202.133]:42168 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727099AbfCTSx4 (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Mar 2019 14:53:56 -0400 Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2019 11:53:47 -0700 From: Matthew Wilcox Subject: Re: [RFC 0/2] guarantee natural alignment for kmalloc() Message-ID: <20190320185347.GZ19508@bombadil.infradead.org> References: <20190319211108.15495-1-vbabka@suse.cz> <01000169988d4e34-b4178f68-c390-472b-b62f-a57a4f459a76-000000@email.amazonses.com> <5d7fee9c-1a80-6ac9-ac1d-b1ce05ed27a8@suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5d7fee9c-1a80-6ac9-ac1d-b1ce05ed27a8@suse.cz> Sender: linux-xfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: List-Id: xfs To: Vlastimil Babka Cc: Christopher Lameter , linux-mm@kvack.org, Pekka Enberg , David Rientjes , Joonsoo Kim , Ming Lei , Dave Chinner , "Darrick J . Wong" , Christoph Hellwig , Michal Hocko , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 09:48:47AM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > Natural alignment to size is rather well defined, no? Would anyone ever > assume a larger one, for what reason? > It's now where some make assumptions (even unknowingly) for natural > There are two 'odd' sizes 96 and 192, which will keep cacheline size > alignment, would anyone really expect more than 64 bytes? Presumably 96 will keep being aligned to 32 bytes, as aligning 96 to 64 just results in 128-byte allocations.