linux-kernel - Re: [Q] Default 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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:	Sat, 13 Oct 2012 02:51:31 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
cc:	Ezequiel Garcia <elezegarcia@...il.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, Tim Bird <tim.bird@...sony.com>,
	celinux-dev@...ts.celinuxforum.org
Subject: Re: [Q] Default SLAB allocator

On Thu, 11 Oct 2012, Andi Kleen wrote:

> When did you last test? Our regressions had disappeared a few kernels
> ago.
> 

This was in August when preparing for LinuxCon, I tested netperf TCP_RR on 
two 64GB machines (one client, one server), four nodes each, with thread 
counts in multiples of the number of cores.  SLUB does a comparable job, 
but once we have the the number of threads equal to three times the number 
of cores, it degrades almost linearly.  I'll run it again next week and 
get some numbers on 3.6.
--
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/