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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2013 16:33:43 +0000 From: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com> To: Joonsoo Kim <js1304@...il.com> cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>, Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>, azurIt <azurit@...ox.sk>, Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>, cgroups@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Christian Casteyde <casteyde.christian@...e.fr>, Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org> Subject: Re: [patch 2/2] fs: buffer: move allocation failure loop into the allocator On Thu, 5 Dec 2013, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > Now we have cpu partial slabs facility, so I think that slowpath isn't really > slow. And it doesn't much increase the management overhead in the node > partial lists, because of cpu partial slabs. Well yes that may address some of the issues here. > And larger frame may cause more slab_lock contention or cmpxchg contention > if there are parallel freeings. > > But, I don't know which one is better. Is larger frame still better? :) Could you run some tests to figure this one out? There are also some situations in which we disable the per cpu partial pages though. F.e. for low latency/realtime. I posted in kernel synthetic benchmarks for slab a while back. That maybe something to start with. -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists