linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] Quick vmalloc vs kmalloc fix to the case where array size is too large

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: <20090714125334.b476aa78.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date:	Tue, 14 Jul 2009 12:53:34 +0900
From:	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
To:	Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>
Cc:	Benjamin Blum <bblum@...gle.com>, Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	serue@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] Quick vmalloc vs kmalloc fix to the case where
 array  size is too large

On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 20:50:33 -0700
Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 4:49 PM, KAMEZAWA
> Hiroyuki<kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com> wrote:
> > IIUC, this place, .../procs interface is not so important for performance
> > as to being allowed this ugly conding.
> >
> 
> It's not just the calling thread that suffers from the overhead -
> we've seen performance hits on other processes on a machine due to the
> TLB-shootdown overhead associated with vmalloc()/vfree().
> 
Hmm, ok...then, if too much pids, you hit vmalloc()/vfree() problem again.
So, it's not good idea to use vmalloc/vfree here after all.

Thanks,
-Kame

--
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/