On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 07:17:20PM +, Bodireddy, Bhanuprakash wrote:
> >On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 08:02:17AM +, Bodireddy, Bhanuprakash wrote:
> >> >
> >> >On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 09:06:09PM +, Bodireddy, Bhanuprakash
> >wrote:
> >> >> >Until now, xmalloc_cacheline() has provided its
>On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 08:02:17AM +, Bodireddy, Bhanuprakash wrote:
>> >
>> >On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 09:06:09PM +, Bodireddy, Bhanuprakash
>wrote:
>> >> >Until now, xmalloc_cacheline() has provided its caller memory that
>> >> >does not share a cache line, but when posix_memalign() is
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 08:02:17AM +, Bodireddy, Bhanuprakash wrote:
> >
> >On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 09:06:09PM +, Bodireddy, Bhanuprakash wrote:
> >> >Until now, xmalloc_cacheline() has provided its caller memory that
> >> >does not share a cache line, but when posix_memalign() is not
> >>
On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 09:06:09PM +, Bodireddy, Bhanuprakash wrote:
> >Until now, xmalloc_cacheline() has provided its caller memory that does not
> >share a cache line, but when posix_memalign() is not available it did not
> >provide a full cache line; instead, it returned memory that was
>Until now, xmalloc_cacheline() has provided its caller memory that does not
>share a cache line, but when posix_memalign() is not available it did not
>provide a full cache line; instead, it returned memory that was offset 8 bytes
>into a cache line. This makes it hard for clients to design
Until now, xmalloc_cacheline() has provided its caller memory that does not
share a cache line, but when posix_memalign() is not available it did not
provide a full cache line; instead, it returned memory that was offset 8
bytes into a cache line. This makes it hard for clients to design
