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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0702241613520.4891@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
Date:	Sat, 24 Feb 2007 16:14:48 -0800 (PST)
From:	Christoph Lameter <clameter@...r.sgi.com>
To:	Jörn Engel <joern@...ybastard.org>
cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com,
	andi@...stfloor.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: SLUB: The unqueued Slab allocator

On Sat, 24 Feb 2007, Jörn Engel wrote:

> How much of a gain is the merging anyway?  Once you start having
> explicit whitelists or blacklists of pools that can be merged, one can
> start to wonder if the result is worth the effort.

It eliminates 50% of the slab caches. Thus it reduces the management 
overhead by half.