From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030657Ab2CCACe (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Mar 2012 19:02:34 -0500 Received: from li9-11.members.linode.com ([67.18.176.11]:58794 "EHLO test.thunk.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030431Ab2CCACP (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Mar 2012 19:02:15 -0500 Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2012 19:02:03 -0500 From: "Ted Ts'o" To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Andi Kleen , "H. Peter Anvin" , Linux Kernel Mailing List , linux-fsdevel , Al Viro Subject: Re: Word-at-a-time dcache name accesses (was Re: .. anybody know of any filesystems that depend on the exact VFS 'namehash' implementation?) Message-ID: <20120303000203.GH22215@thunk.org> Mail-Followup-To: Ted Ts'o , Linus Torvalds , Andi Kleen , "H. Peter Anvin" , Linux Kernel Mailing List , linux-fsdevel , Al Viro References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: tytso@thunk.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on test.thunk.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@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