linux-kernel - Re: slub: Do not use 192 byte sized cache if minimum alignment is 128 byte

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: <84144f020807030837k213e1880vf2d01bcf77e6886c@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 3 Jul 2008 18:37:52 +0300
From:	"Pekka Enberg" <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
To:	"Christoph Lameter" <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	"Matt Mackall" <mpm@...enic.com>,
	"Yoichi Yuasa" <yoichi_yuasa@...peaks.co.jp>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: slub: Do not use 192 byte sized cache if minimum alignment is 128 byte

On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 5:14 PM, Christoph Lameter
<cl@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> The 192 byte cache is not necessary if we have a basic alignment of 128
> byte. If it would be used then the 192 would be aligned to the next 128 byte
> boundary which would result in another 256 byte cache. Two 256 kmalloc caches
> cause sysfs to complain about a duplicate entry.
>
> MIPS needs 128 byte aligned kmalloc caches and spits out warnings on boot without
> this patch.
>
> Signed-off-by: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>

Looks good to me. Yoichi, did you have the chance to test this?
Christoph, are the warnings harmless or do we need to get this into
2.6.26?
--
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/