linux-kernel - Re: [patch 12/26] SLUB: Slab defragmentation core

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:	Tue, 26 Jun 2007 11:19:26 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
	suresh.b.siddha@...el.com
Subject: Re: [patch 12/26] SLUB: Slab defragmentation core

On Tue, 26 Jun 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:

> > 	No slab operations may be performed in get_reference(). Interrupts
> 
> s/get_reference/get/, yes?

Correct.

> (What's the smallest sized object slub will create?  4 bytes?)

__alignof__(unsigned long long)

> To hold off a concurrent free while defragging, the code relies upon
> slab_lock() on the current page, yes?

Right.
 
> But slab_lock() isn't taken for slabs whose objects are larger than 
> PAGE_SIZE. How's that handled?

slab lock is always taken. How did you get that idea?

> Overall: looks good.  It'd be nice to get a buffer_head shrinker in place,
> see how that goes from a proof-of-concept POV.

Ok.

> How much testing has been done on this code, and of what form, and with
> what results?

I posted them in the intro of the last full post and then Michael 
Piotrowski did some stress tests.

See http://marc.info/?l=linux-mm&m=118125373320855&w=2

-
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/