Re: [RFC 0/2] guarantee natural alignment for kmalloc()

[Matthew Wilcox]

On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 09:48:47AM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> Natural alignment to size is rather well defined, no? Would anyone ever
> assume a larger one, for what reason?
> It's now where some make assumptions (even unknowingly) for natural
> There are two 'odd' sizes 96 and 192, which will keep cacheline size
> alignment, would anyone really expect more than 64 bytes?

Presumably 96 will keep being aligned to 32 bytes, as aligning 96 to 64
just results in 128-byte allocations.