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: <20070224142835.4c7a3207.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date:	Sat, 24 Feb 2007 14:28:35 +0900
From:	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
To:	Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
Cc:	andi@...stfloor.org, 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 10:42:23 -0800 (PST)
Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com> wrote:

> > > 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.
> 
>From a viewpoint of a crash dump user, this merging will make crash dump
investigation very very very difficult.
So please avoid this merging if the benefit is nog big.

-Kame

-
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/