linux-kernel - Re: No, really, stop trying to delete slab until you've finished making slub perform as well

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <2f11576a0808040947r69076eecv9ff92ecf583f7af2@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 5 Aug 2008 01:47:42 +0900
From:	"KOSAKI Motohiro" <m-kosaki@...es.dti.ne.jp>
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>, kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com
Subject: Re: No, really, stop trying to delete slab until you've finished making slub perform as well

Hi

> Could you address the performance issues in different ways? F.e. try to free
> when the object is hot or free from multiple processors? SLAB has to take the
> list_lock rather frequently under high concurrent loads (depends on queue
> size). That will not occur with SLUB. So you actually can free (and allocate)
> concurrently with high performance.

just information. (offtopic?)

When hackbench running, SLUB consume memory very largely than SLAB.
then, SLAB often outperform SLUB in memory stavation state.

I don't know why memory comsumption different.
Anyone know it?
--
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/