From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754589AbYIHSS0 (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Sep 2008 14:18:26 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753231AbYIHSSS (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Sep 2008 14:18:18 -0400 Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:52055 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753031AbYIHSSQ (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Sep 2008 14:18:16 -0400 Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 11:17:39 -0700 (PDT) From: Linus Torvalds To: "H. Peter Anvin" cc: x86 maintainers , Andrew Morton , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: [git pull] x86 fixes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <200809081752.m88Hq6tn005080@askone.hos.anvin.org> User-Agent: Alpine 1.10 (LFD 962 2008-03-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 8 Sep 2008, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > - X86_GENERIC means _other_ things too, like doing a 128-bit cacheline > just so that it won't suck horribly on P4's even if it's otherwise > tuned for a good microarchitecture. Hmm. The only other thing seems to be X86_INTEL_USERCOPY. Which doesn't seem to be something we want to force either. And I have to say, that whole X86_GENERIC -> L1_CACHE_BYTES=128 -> cache_line_size() -> SLAB/SLUB/SLOB alignment worries me too. Looking at that, I really don't feel like I want to force 128-byte alignment on everybody, just because the P4 was a pig in cacheline size. So NOPL really stands out as being different from the other things that X86_GENERIC does. Linus