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: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 01:36:11 +0100 From: Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com> To: Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org> CC: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> Subject: Re: [patch 6/13] signal/timer/event fds v7 - timerfd core ... Davide Libenzi a écrit : > +struct timerfd_ctx { > + struct hrtimer tmr; > + ktime_t tintv; > + spinlock_t lock; > + wait_queue_head_t wqh; > + unsigned long ticks; > +}; > +static struct kmem_cache *timerfd_ctx_cachep; > + timerfd_ctx_cachep = kmem_cache_create("timerfd_ctx_cache", > + sizeof(struct timerfd_ctx), > + 0, SLAB_PANIC, NULL, NULL); Do we really expect thousands of active timerfd_ctx ? If not, using kmalloc()/kfree() would be fine, because sizeof(struct timerfd_ctx) is so small. on SMP / NUMA platforms, each new kmem_cache is rather expensive. (memory allocated at kmem_cache_create(), but also memory used when cache is not empty, with slabs in freelist for each cpu/node) Using a general cache might be cheaper : No memory overhead for yet another kmem_cache. I know individual caches are good to spot memory leaks, but in timerfd case, you dont have mem leaks, do you ? :) - 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