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: <alpine.DEB.2.00.0911301512250.12038@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date:	Mon, 30 Nov 2009 15:14:22 -0800 (PST)
From:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
cc:	Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
Subject: Re: lockdep complaints in slab allocator

On Fri, 27 Nov 2009, Christoph Lameter wrote:

> > > I'm afraid I have only anecdotal reports from SLOB users, and embedded
> > > folks are notorious for lack of feedback, but I only need a few people
> > > to tell me they're shipping 100k units/mo to be confident that SLOB is
> > > in use in millions of devices.
> > >
> >
> > It's much more popular than I had expected; do you think it would be
> > possible to merge slob's core into another allocator or will it require
> > seperation forever?
> 
> It would be possible to create a slab-common.c and isolate common handling
> of all allocators. SLUB and SLQB share quite a lot of code and SLAB could
> be cleaned up and made to fit into such a framework.
> 

Right, but the user is still left with a decision of which slab allocator 
to compile into their kernel, each with distinct advantages and 
disadvantages that get exploited for the wide range of workloads that it 
runs.  If slob could be merged into another allocator, it would be simple 
to remove the distinction of it being seperate altogether, the differences 
would depend on CONFIG_EMBEDDED instead.
--
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/