linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] Slab allocators: Drop support for destructors

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]

Date:	Thu, 10 May 2007 12:24:20 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
To:	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Slab allocators: Drop support for destructors

On Thu, 10 May 2007, Pekka Enberg wrote:

> > Or do we want to continue support destructors? If so why?
> 
> Well, constructors are on their way out too because they don't seem to
> give the performance benefit they were designed for anymore. As for
> destructors, they have been pretty useless in Linux for a long time
> now and we really don't do much "complex initialization" that requires
> undo (releasing resources).

Well I am not too sure about removing constructors. Andrew's test seems to 
show some benefit. That is just one test though. We need more. I do not 
like constructors either but if performance tests show regressions then we 
need to keep them.

-
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/