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:	Wed, 24 Oct 2007 19:43:17 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
To:	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
cc:	Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>, Mel Gorman <mel@...net.ie>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: SLUB 0:1 SLAB (OOM during massive parallel kernel builds)

On Thu, 25 Oct 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:

> > Ummm... all unreclaimable is set! Are you mlocking the pages in memory? Or
> > what causes this? All pages under writeback? What is the dirty ratio set
> > to?
> 
> Why is SLUB behaving differently, though.

Nore sure. Are we really sure that this does not occur using SLAB?

> Memory efficiency wouldn't be the reason, would it? I mean, SLUB
> should be more efficient than SLAB, plus have less data lying around
> in queues.

SLAB may have data around in queues which (if the stars align the right 
way) may allow it to go longer without having to get a page from the page 
allocator.
-
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/