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: <1259095580.4531.1788.camel@laptop>
Date:	Tue, 24 Nov 2009 21:46:20 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>
Cc:	paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.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 13:23 -0600, Matt Mackall wrote:

> My understanding of the current state of play is:
> 
> SLUB: default allocator
> SLAB: deep maintenance, will be removed if SLUB ever covers remaining
> performance regressions
> SLOB: useful for low-end (but high-volume!) embedded 
> SLQB: sitting in slab.git#for-next for months, has some ground to cover
> 
> SLQB and SLUB have pretty similar target audiences, so I agree we should
> eventually have only one of them. But I strongly expect performance
> results to be mixed, just as they have been comparing SLUB/SLAB.
> Similarly, SLQB still has of room for tuning left compared to SLUB, as
> SLUB did compared to SLAB when it first emerged. It might be a while
> before a clear winner emerges.

And as long as we drag out this madness nothing will change I suspect.

--
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/