| 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: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 14:38:55 -0700 (PDT) From: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com> To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> cc: a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl, nickpiggin@...oo.com.au, hch@....de, mel@...net.ie, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dgc@....com, jens.axboe@...cle.com Subject: Re: [15/17] SLUB: Support virtual fallback via SLAB_VFALLBACK On Mon, 1 Oct 2007, Andrew Morton wrote: > Do slab and slub use the same underlying page size for each slab? SLAB cannot pack objects as dense as SLUB and they have different algorithm to make the choice of order. Thus the number of objects per slab may vary between SLAB and SLUB and therefore also the choice of order to store these objects. > Single data point: the CONFIG_SLAB boxes which I have access to here are > using order-0 for radix_tree_node, so they won't be failing in the way in > which Peter's machine is. Upstream SLUB uses order 0 allocations for the radix tree. MM varies because the use of higher order allocs is more loose if the mobility algorithms are found to be active: 2.6.23-rc8: Name Objects Objsize Space Slabs/Part/Cpu O/S O %Fr %Ef Flg\ radix_tree_node 14281 552 9.9M 2432/948/1 7 0 38 79 - 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