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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2008 16:21:46 +0100 From: Jamie Lokier <jamie@...reable.org> To: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org> Cc: Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>, Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, Mel Gorman <mel@...net.ie>, andi@...stfloor.org, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com> Subject: Re: No, really, stop trying to delete slab until you've finished making slub perform as well Jamie Lokier wrote: > Vaguely on this topic, has anyone studied the effects of SLAB/SLUB > etc. on MMUless systems? The reason is that MMU-less systems are extremely sensitive to fragmentation. Every program started on those systems must allocate a large contiguous block for the code and data, and every malloc >1 page is the same. If memory is too fragmented, starting new programs fails. The high-order page-allocator defragmentation lately should help with that. The different behaviours of SLAB/SLUB might result in different levels of fragmentation, so I wonder if anyone has compared them on MMU-less systems or fragmentation-sensitive workloads on general systems. Thanks, -- Jamie -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists