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]

Date:	Mon, 16 Feb 2009 21:42:17 +0200
From:	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
To:	Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>
CC:	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
	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>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [patch] SLQB slab allocator (try 2)

Mel Gorman wrote:
>> There's a follow-up patch from Yanmin which
>> will make a difference for large allocations when page-allocator
>> pass-through is reverted:
>>
>> http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/penberg/slab-2.6.git;a=commitdiff;h=79b350ab63458ef1d11747b4f119baea96771a6e
> 
> Is this expected to make a difference to workloads that are not that
> allocator intensive? I doubt it'll make much different to speccpu but
> conceivably it makes a difference to sysbench.

I doubt that too but I fail to see why it's regressing with the revert 
in the first place for speccpu. Maybe it's cache effects, dunno.

			Pekka
--
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/