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, 10 Jul 2007 11:58:44 +1000 From: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au> To: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com> CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...r.kernel.org, suresh.b.siddha@...el.com, corey.d.gough@...el.com, Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>, Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>, Denis Vlasenko <vda.linux@...glemail.com>, Erik Andersen <andersen@...epoet.org> Subject: Re: [patch 09/10] Remove the SLOB allocator for 2.6.23 Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Tue, 10 Jul 2007, Nick Piggin wrote: > > >>>O(n) memory savings? What is that? >> >>Allocate n things and your memory waste is proportional to n (well that's >>O(n) waste, so I guess by savings I mean that SLOB's memory saving compared >>to SLUB are proportional to n). > > > n is the size of the object? n things -- n number of things (n calls to kmem_cache_alloc()). Just a fancy way of saying roughly that memory waste will increase as the size of the system increases. But that aspect of it I think is not really a problem for non-tiny systems anyway because the waste tends not to be too bad (and possibly the number of active allocations does not increase O(n) with the size of RAM either). -- SUSE Labs, Novell Inc. - 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