linux-kernel - Re: SLUB 0:1 SLAB (OOM during massive parallel kernel builds)

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, 23 Oct 2007 23:41:42 +0300
From:	"Pekka Enberg" <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
To:	"Christoph Lameter" <clameter@....com>
Cc:	"Alexey Dobriyan" <adobriyan@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, "Linux MM" <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: SLUB 0:1 SLAB (OOM during massive parallel kernel builds)

Hi Christoph,

(I fixed linux-mm cc to kvack.org.)

On 10/23/07, Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com> wrote:
> The number of objects per page is reduced by enabling full debugging. That
> triggers a potential of more order 1 allocations but we are failing at
> order 0 allocs.

Yeah, but we're _not failing_ when debugging is enabled. Thus, it's
likely, that the _failing_ (non-debug) case has potential for more
order 0 allocs, no? I am just guessing here but maybe it's
slab_order() behaving differently from calculate_slab_order() so that
we see more order 0 pressure in SLUB than SLAB?

                                     Pekka
-
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/