linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH][RFC] slub: increasing order reduces memory usage of some key caches

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, 16 Jul 2008 09:46:51 -0500
From:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...il.com>
CC:	Richard Kennedy <richard@....demon.co.uk>, penberg@...helsinki.fi,
	mpm@...enic.com, linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>
Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC] slub: increasing order reduces memory usage of some
 key caches

Vegard Nossum wrote:

> Hm, I don't think so? I thought that those 1 and 2 were not orders,
> but in fact the number of pages. Which seems correct, since now you
> have 4096 / 208 = 19 :-)

Makes sense. So the problem is that for some reason his kernel chose order 0 for dentries. Mine choose order 1 and everything was fine. Maybe related to the number of processors (my box has 8)? We added some logic in 2.6.26 to increase slab sizes if lots of processors are present.
--
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/