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 13:48:14 -0800
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.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, Nov 24, 2009 at 10:12:30PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra 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.

I completely agree.  We need at least ten.  ;-)

							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/