linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] Implement slub fastpath with sequence number

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: <84144f020803110745jcc73368l84e2268b68133520@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 11 Mar 2008 16:45:48 +0200
From:	"Pekka Enberg" <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
To:	"Nick Piggin" <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
Cc:	"Mathieu Desnoyers" <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>,
	"Christoph Lameter" <clameter@....com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] Implement slub fastpath with sequence number

Hi Nick,

On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 11:41 AM, Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au> wrote:
>  Wow. I applaud the effort to micro optimise things ;)
>
>  But I hope this doesn't get merged until macro-regressions in SLUB
>  are verified to be fixed. It's pretty clear that SLUB's problem is
>  not fastpath performance, so I think this would be premature
>  optimisation.

What regressions are you referring to? The SLAB_HWCACHE_ALIGN
regression patch you sent is being merged. What else?

And FWIW, I don't like the patch because it makes the code very hairy.
But I don't see why we shouldn't merge SLUB fast-path optimizations if
they're clean and you have the numbers to show it's a gain even if
there are other remaining regressions.
--
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/