linux-kernel - Re: SLUB: The unqueued 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]

Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0702221040140.2011@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
Date:	Thu, 22 Feb 2007 10:42:23 -0800 (PST)
From:	Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
To:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
cc:	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: SLUB: The unqueued Slab allocator

On Thu, 22 Feb 2007, Andi Kleen wrote:

> >    SLUB does not need a cache reaper for UP systems.
> 
> This means constructors/destructors are becomming worthless? 
> Can you describe your rationale why you think they don't make
> sense on UP?

Cache reaping has nothing to do with constructors and destructors. SLUB 
fully supports constructors and destructors.

> > G. Slab merging
> > 
> >    We often have slab caches with similar parameters. SLUB detects those
> >    on bootup and merges them into the corresponding general caches. This
> >    leads to more effective memory use.
> 
> Did you do any tests on what that does to long term memory fragmentation?
> It is against the "object of same type have similar livetime and should
> be clustered together" theory at least.

I have done no tests in that regard and we would have to assess the impact 
that the merging has to overall system behavior.

-
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/