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.2.00.0912011045200.9896@router.home>
Date:	Tue, 1 Dec 2009 10:47:44 -0600 (CST)
From:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
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 Mon, 30 Nov 2009, David Rientjes wrote:

> 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.

No embedded folks that I know are using SLOB. CONFIG_EMBEDDED still would
require a selection of allocators. I have no direct knowledge of anyone
using SLOB (despite traveling widely this year) aside from what Matt tells
me.

--
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/