linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/5] make slab gfp fair

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: <1179298771.7173.16.camel@twins>
Date:	Wed, 16 May 2007 08:59:31 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To:	Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
Cc:	Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Daniel Phillips <phillips@...gle.com>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] make slab gfp fair

On Tue, 2007-05-15 at 15:02 -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Tue, 15 May 2007, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 
> > How about something like this; it seems to sustain a little stress.
> 
> Argh again mods to kmem_cache.

Hmm, I had not understood you minded that very much; I did stay away
from all the fast paths this time.

The thing is, I wanted to fold all the emergency allocs into a single
slab, not a per cpu thing. And once you loose the per cpu thing, you
need some extra serialization. Currently the top level lock is
slab_lock(page), but that only works because we have interrupts disabled
and work per cpu.

Why is it bad to extend kmem_cache a bit?

-
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/