linux-kernel - Re: [patch] SLQB slab allocator

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.1.10.0902041509320.8154@qirst.com>
Date:	Wed, 4 Feb 2009 15:10:31 -0500 (EST)
From:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
cc:	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
	"Zhang, Yanmin" <yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com>,
	Lin Ming <ming.m.lin@...el.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [patch] SLQB slab allocator

On Tue, 3 Feb 2009, Pekka Enberg wrote:

> Well, the slab_hiwater() check in __slab_free() of mm/slqb.c will cap
> the size of the queue. But we do the same thing in SLAB with
> alien->limit in cache_free_alien() and ac->limit in __cache_free(). So
> I'm not sure what you mean when you say that the queues will "grow
> unconstrained" (in either of the allocators). Hmm?

Nick said he wanted to defer queue processing. If the water marks are
checked and queue processing run then of course queue processing is not
deferred and the queue does not build up further.

--
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/