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 23:19:33 +0200
From:	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	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, Nov 24, 2009 at 11:12 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> 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.

The whole idea behind merging SLQB is to see if it can replace SLAB.
If it can't do that in few kernel releases, we're pulling it out. It's
as simple as that.

And if SLQB can replace SLAB, then we start to talk about replacing SLUB too...

                        Pekka
--
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/