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.
