linux-kernel - Re: [rfc][patch] SLQB slab allocator

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 12 Dec 2008 10:43:02 +0100
From:	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
To:	Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>
Cc:	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [rfc][patch] SLQB slab allocator

On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 08:23:55AM +0100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> Anyway, I'll see if I can work out why SLQB is slower. Do you have
> socketallocbench online?

Hmph, it seems to be in the noise (I'm testing with an AMD system
though). Some boots SLAB is faster, other boots, SLQB is. Could be
a matter of luck in cacheline placement maybe?

I think this benchmark (after the slab rcu patch) will be pretty
trivial for any slab allocator because it will basically be each
CPU allocating then freeing an object.

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