linux-kernel - Re: [patch 2/2] slub: add min

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: <1235377162.6216.5.camel@penberg-laptop>
Date:	Mon, 23 Feb 2009 10:19:22 +0200
From:	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
To:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 2/2] slub: add min_partial sysfs tunable

Hi David,

On Sun, 2009-02-22 at 17:40 -0800, David Rientjes wrote:
> Now that a cache's min_partial has been moved to struct kmem_cache, it's
> possible to easily tune it from userspace by adding a sysfs attribute.
> 
> It may not be desirable to keep a large number of partial slabs around if
> a cache is used infrequently and memory, especially when constrained by a
> cgroup, is scarce.  It's better to allow userspace to set the minimum
> policy per cache instead of relying explicitly on kmem_cache_shrink().

The patches look good but the description is bit lacking. Does this
actually fix up something? Why don't we fix the limit calculations
instead?

I'm a sucker for numbers so I'm easily fooled into merging patches with
statements of the form "this shaves off N bytes/kb/mb on XYZ systems".

			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/