> I'm all for fixing the slab allocator to allocated from non-cached
> memory (heh, trust me - don't look at usb-ohci-sa1111.h :-)
Sorry -- already did! :) There's a MIPS patch too; I hope to
start fixing this soon "for real".
> but, shouldn't a distinction be made between hardware cache alignment
> and strict hardware required alignment?
Well, the specs for kmem_cache_create() say that when you
pass that flag, it gives you cache-aligned data -- period, end
of story. I think you're talking about that as being what I'd
call a "performance hint" ... which is _not_ what's specified.
- Dave
> >(1) CONFIG_SLAB_DEBUG breaks the documented
> >requirement that the slab cache return adequately aligned
> >data ... which the appended patch should probably handle
> >nicely (something like it sure did :-) and with less danger
> >than the large patch you posted.
> >
> >
> >--- slab.c-orig Tue Mar 6 15:01:26 2001
> >+++ slab.c Tue Mar 6 15:05:58 2001
> >@@ -676,12 +676,10 @@
> > }
> >
> > #if DEBUG
> >+ /* redzoning would break cache alignment requirements */
> >+ if (flags & SLAB_HWCACHE_ALIGN)
> >+ flags &= ~SLAB_RED_ZONE;
> > if (flags & SLAB_RED_ZONE) {
> >- /*
> >- * There is no point trying to honour cache alignment
> >- * when redzoning.
> >- */
> >- flags &= ~SLAB_HWCACHE_ALIGN;
> > size += 2*BYTES_PER_WORD; /* words for redzone */
> > }
> > #endif
> >
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >To unsubscribe, use the last form field at:
> >http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
>
> _______________________________________________
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To unsubscribe, use the last form field at:
> http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
_______________________________________________
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe, use the last form field at:
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
