linux-kernel - Re: lockdep complaints in 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]

Date:	Tue, 24 Nov 2009 19:31:51 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc:	Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	cl@...ux-foundation.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
Subject: Re: lockdep complaints in slab allocator

On Tue, 2009-11-24 at 10:25 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:

> Well, I suppose I could make my scripts randomly choose the memory
> allocator, but I would rather not.  ;-)

Which is why I hope we'll soon be down to 2, SLOB for tiny systems and
SLQB for the rest of us, having 3 in-tree and 1 pending is pure and
simple insanity.

Preferably SLQB will be small enough to also be able to get rid of SLOB,
but I've not recently seen any data on that particular issue.

--
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/