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: <1259097150.4531.1822.camel@laptop>
Date:	Tue, 24 Nov 2009 22:12:30 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc:	Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	Christoph Lameter <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 13:03 -0800, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 
> > Merge SLQB and rm mm/sl[ua]b.c include/linux/sl[ua]b.h for .33-rc1
> > 
> 
> slqb still has a 5-10% performance regression compared to slab for 
> benchmarks such as netperf TCP_RR on machines with high cpu counts, 
> forcing that type of regression isn't acceptable.

Having _4_ slab allocators is equally unacceptable.

--
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/