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]

Message-ID: <20091124185459.GH6831@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Tue, 24 Nov 2009 10:54:59 -0800
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
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, Nov 24, 2009 at 07:31:51PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 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.

So I should start specifying SLOB for my TINY_RCU tests, then.

> 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.

Given the existence of TINY_RCU, I would look pretty funny if I insisted
on but a single implementation of core subsystems.  ;-)

							Thanx, Paul
--
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/