From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@digeo.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] net drivers and cache alignment
Date: Sat, 07 Dec 2002 15:51:36 -0800
Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com
Message-ID: <3DF28988.93F268EA@digeo.com>
References: <3DF2844C.F9216283@digeo.com> <20021207.153045.26640406.davem@redhat.com> <3DF28748.186AB31F@digeo.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com>
To: "David S. Miller" <davem@redhat.com>, jgarzik@pobox.com,
   linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@oss.sgi.com
Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com
List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org

Andrew Morton wrote:
> 
> "David S. Miller" wrote:
> >
> >    From: Andrew Morton <akpm@digeo.com>
> >    Date: Sat, 07 Dec 2002 15:29:16 -0800
> >
> >    Jeff Garzik wrote:
> >    > Attached is cut #2.  Thanks for all the near-instant feedback so far :)
> >    >   Andrew, does the attached still need padding on SMP?
> >
> >    It needs padding _only_ on SMP.  ____cacheline_aligned_in_smp.
> >
> > non-smp machines lack L2 caches?  That's new to me :-)
> >
> > More seriously, there are real benefits on non-SMP systems.
> 
> Then I am most confused.  None of these fields will be put under
> busmastering or anything like that, so what advantage is there in
> spreading them out?

Oh I see what you want - to be able to pick up all the operating fields
in a single fetch.

That will increase the overall cache footprint though.  I wonder if
it's really a net win, over just keeping it small.