linux-kernel - Re: [patch] SLQB slab allocator (try 2)

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: <alpine.DEB.1.10.0902041048140.19633@qirst.com>
Date:	Wed, 4 Feb 2009 10:48:29 -0500 (EST)
From:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
cc:	Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>, Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
	Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Lin Ming <ming.m.lin@...el.com>,
	"Zhang, Yanmin" <yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [patch] SLQB slab allocator (try 2)

On Tue, 3 Feb 2009, Nick Piggin wrote:

> > Just to clarify on this last point, do you mean slub_max_order=0 to
> > force order-0 allocations in SLUB?
>
> Hmm... I think slub_min_objects=1 should also do basically the same.
> Actually slub_min_object=1 and slub_max_order=1 should get closest I
> think.

slub_max_order=0 would be sufficient.

--
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/