Re: Word-at-a-time dcache name accesses (was Re: .. anybody know ofany filesystems that depend on the exact VFS 'namehash' implementation?)

[Linus Torvalds]

On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 4:02 PM, Ted Ts'o <tytso@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> Stupid question.  Your patch requires unaligned accesses to not have a
> heavy penalty, right?  Wasn't it the case that some generations of x86
> had pretty large penalties for aligned accesses?  Is that something we
> need to worry about?

There are basically no x86's with heavy penalties.

Sure, unaligned accesses are often *slightly* more expensive,
especially if they cross the cache access boundary (which tends to be
8 bytes on older 32-bit cpu's, and generally 16 bytes on more modern
CPUs - so it's not that they are unaligned per se, but that they cross
the bank size). But even then, it's usually not a huge deal (ie it
takes up two read slots instead of just one).

There are x86 chips that are extremely bad at unaligned SSE/MMX
accesses, but not regular words.

                      Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/