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

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

Date:	Tue, 16 Oct 2012 19:02:06 +0000
From:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
To:	Ezequiel Garcia <elezegarcia@...il.com>
cc:	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, Ezequiel Garcia wrote:

> * Is SLAB a proper choice? or is it just historical an never been re-evaluated?
> * Does the average embedded guy knows which allocator to choose
>   and what's the impact on his platform?

My current ideas on this subject matter is to get to a point where we have
a generic slab allocator framework that allows us to provide any
object layout we want. This will simplify handling new slab allocators that
seems to crop up frequently. Maybe even allow the specification of the
storage layout when the slab is created. Depending on how the memory is
used there may be different object layouts that are most advantageous.

--
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/