Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 14:07:05 -0800 From: John-Mark Gurney <jmg@funkthat.com> To: "Gumpula, Suresh" <Suresh.Gumpula@netapp.com> Cc: "freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org" <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>, Ian Lepore <ian@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: malloc(9) and its alignment Message-ID: <20140212220705.GV34851@funkthat.com> In-Reply-To: <D29CB80EBA4DEA4D91181928AAF51538438EF8DC@SACEXCMBX04-PRD.hq.netapp.com> References: <D29CB80EBA4DEA4D91181928AAF51538438EED0A@SACEXCMBX04-PRD.hq.netapp.com> <1392214788.1145.52.camel@revolution.hippie.lan> <D29CB80EBA4DEA4D91181928AAF51538438EF8DC@SACEXCMBX04-PRD.hq.netapp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Gumpula, Suresh wrote this message on Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 19:40 +0000:
> Thanks Ian for the reply. I will look at the ARM code, but I was thinking why malloc(9) does not return bucket size aligned pointers.
Always returning bucket sizes aligned pointers may not be ideal for a
cache.. say you have a buffer of 512 bytes, where often only the first
128 bytes are used (but all 512 bytes may be)... If you always align at
512, some cache lines will be more heavily used than others, reducing
the effective size of the cache...
This is only one reason not aligning to size may be better...
--
John-Mark Gurney Voice: +1 415 225 5579
"All that I will do, has been done, All that I have, has not."
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20140212220705.GV34851>