Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932458AbVJYWkT (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Oct 2005 18:40:19 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932457AbVJYWkS (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Oct 2005 18:40:18 -0400 Received: from smtp004.mail.ukl.yahoo.com ([217.12.11.35]:63674 "HELO smtp004.mail.ukl.yahoo.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S932454AbVJYWkR (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Oct 2005 18:40:17 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.it; h=Received:From:To:Subject:Date:User-Agent:Cc:References:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Disposition:Message-Id; b=JlvDebMR3783Wwj4HmFR3iw2te5Dnfxbb+xc5CIuTVTSUKxz4rU8qJZFkou4OPcWoazWt5L30qYcLB8zzB/OtWGmye94dh87XnaFK1rJHLLkkvl9qMQYOJHD2OdUiPNOmKyRxGiIyrNDZI2rVgIA912j4KCV0OmURNwDFl5xtLw= ; From: Blaisorblade To: Andi Kleen Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/6] x86_64: fix L1_CACHE_SHIFT_MAX for Intel EM64T [for 2.6.14?] Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 00:44:25 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.8.3 Cc: Andrew Morton , Jeff Dike , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net References: <20051025221105.21106.95194.stgit@zion.home.lan> <20051025221253.21106.22572.stgit@zion.home.lan> <200510260024.17241.ak@suse.de> In-Reply-To: <200510260024.17241.ak@suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200510260044.26138.blaisorblade@yahoo.it> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1406 Lines: 35 On Wednesday 26 October 2005 00:24, Andi Kleen wrote: > > No correctness issues, obviously. So this could even be merged for 2.6.14 > > (I'm not a fan of this idea, though). > > I don't think it's a good idea to mess with this for 2.6.14 > In general the maxaligned stuff is imho bogus and should be removed. That > is what CONFIG_X86_GENERIC is for. It doesn't make sense imho to separate > the variables in two aligned classes - either they should be aligned in all > cases or they shouldn't. For what I see, that's based on the tradeoff between space and contention - for instance there are few zones only, so there's no big waste. In practice, interpreting !X86_GENERIC as "I will run this kernel on _this_ processor" could also be done. However, in case you didn't note, max_align is never enough on EM64T currently, right? -- Inform me of my mistakes, so I can keep imitating Homer Simpson's "Doh!". Paolo Giarrusso, aka Blaisorblade (Skype ID "PaoloGiarrusso", ICQ 215621894) http://www.user-mode-linux.org/~blaisorblade ___________________________________ Yahoo! Mail: gratis 1GB per i messaggi e allegati da 10MB http://mail.yahoo.it - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/