linux-kernel - Re: [patch 0/7] [RFC] SLUB: Improve allocpercpu to reduce per cpu access overhead

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]

Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0711121154270.27051@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
Date:	Mon, 12 Nov 2007 11:56:53 -0800 (PST)
From:	Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
To:	Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>
cc:	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca, penberg@...helsinki.fi
Subject: Re: [patch 0/7] [RFC] SLUB: Improve allocpercpu to reduce per cpu
 access overhead

On Mon, 12 Nov 2007, Eric Dumazet wrote:

> Christoph Lameter a écrit :
> > On Mon, 12 Nov 2007, Herbert Xu wrote:
> > 
> > > David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
> > > > Each IP compression tunnel instance does an alloc_percpu().
> > > Actually all IPComp tunnels share one set of objects which are
> > > allocated per-cpu.  So only the first tunnel would do that.
> > 
> > Ahh so the need to be able to expand per cpu memory storage on demand is not
> > as critical as we thought.
> > 
> 
> Yes, but still desirable for future optimizations.
> 
> For example, I do think using a per cpu memory storage on net_device refcnt &
> last_rx could give us some speedups.

Note that there was a new patchset posted (titled cpu alloc v1) that 
provides on demand extension of the cpu areas.

See http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=119438261304093&w=2