Re: random call_single_data alignment

2017-12-20 Thread Jens Axboe
On 12/20/17 1:18 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 12:40:25PM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote: >> On 12/20/17 12:10 PM, Jens Axboe wrote: >>> For some reason, commit 966a967116e6 was added to the tree without >>> CC'ing relevant maintainers, even though it's touching random subsystems. >>

Re: random call_single_data alignment

2017-12-20 Thread Peter Zijlstra
On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 12:40:25PM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote: > On 12/20/17 12:10 PM, Jens Axboe wrote: > > For some reason, commit 966a967116e6 was added to the tree without > > CC'ing relevant maintainers, even though it's touching random subsystems. > > One example is struct request, a core struct

Re: random call_single_data alignment

2017-12-20 Thread Jens Axboe
On 12/20/17 12:10 PM, Jens Axboe wrote: > For some reason, commit 966a967116e6 was added to the tree without > CC'ing relevant maintainers, even though it's touching random subsystems. > One example is struct request, a core structure in the block layer. > After this change, struct request grows fr

random call_single_data alignment

2017-12-20 Thread Jens Axboe
For some reason, commit 966a967116e6 was added to the tree without CC'ing relevant maintainers, even though it's touching random subsystems. One example is struct request, a core structure in the block layer. After this change, struct request grows from 296 to 320 bytes on my setup. Why are we bli