linux-kernel - Re: [patch] slub: default min_partial to at least highest cpus per node

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:	Tue, 07 Apr 2009 23:35:53 +0300
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] slub: default min_partial to at least highest cpus per
  node

David Rientjes wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Apr 2009, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> 
>>> If you think that's acceptable, I'd be just as satisfied with that approach
>>> as long as all archs have valid cpu_to_node() mappings at the time of
>>> CPU_UP_PREPARE.
>> Well, that doesn't change the current behavior, so sure, I think it's
>> acceptable. And if the new defaults seem reasonable enough, we can probably
>> get rid of the tunable altogether.
> 
> I'd like to remove MAX_PARTIAL and replace it with nr_cpu_ids.

Yeah, something more dynamic makes sense. But we probably need to do 
ilog2(nr_cpu_ids) or something; otherwise we will have very long partial 
lists on big iron machines (think 4096 cpus here).
--
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/