linux-kernel - Re: + fix-spellings-of-slab-allocator-section-in-init-kconfig.patch added to -mm tree

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]

Date:	Tue, 8 May 2007 17:51:27 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
To:	Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>
cc:	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: + fix-spellings-of-slab-allocator-section-in-init-kconfig.patch
 added to -mm tree

On Tue, 8 May 2007, Matt Mackall wrote:

> First, SLOB no longer runs on SMP because SLAB grew some RCU-related
> hair. So it now effectively has no locks at all! 

Well it seems that SLOB was not well maintained. RCU has been around for a 
long time and SLOB has not been updated to cope with it.
 
> Third, I don't think it's possible even in theory for a SLAB-like
> allocator to be as efficient as SLOB simply due to the constraints of
> putting only objects of the same size on a given page. So consider me
> skeptical on the density claim.

SLUB can put 32 objects sized 128 byte each in a 4k page. Can SLOB do 
the same?
 
> It is usually better to use SLUB simply because you're more likely to
> have 1GB of RAM rather than 4MB.

SLUB should be perfectly fine for that environment provided you 
adjust the cacheline alignment and switch off SLUB debugging. 
define L1_CACHE_BYTES to be 4 or so.

-
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/