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: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 10:39:58 -0500 (CDT) From: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org> To: Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com> cc: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>, Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>, nickpiggin@...oo.com.au, hugh@...itas.com, linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org Subject: Re: SLUB defrag pull request? On Thu, 23 Oct 2008, Eric Dumazet wrote: > At alloc time, I remember I added a prefetchw() call in SLAB in > __cache_alloc(), > this could explain some differences between SLUB and SLAB too, since SLAB > gives a hint to processor to warm its cache. SLUB touches objects by default when allocating. And it does it immediately in slab_alloc() in order to retrieve the pointer to the next object. So there is no point of hinting there right now. If we go to the pointer arrays then the situation is similar to SLAB where the object is not touched by the allocator. Then the hint would be useful again. -- 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