linux-kernel - Re: [S+Q2 00/19] SLUB with queueing (V2) beats SLAB netperf TCP

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4C4016FD.9080207@cs.helsinki.fi>
Date:	Fri, 16 Jul 2010 11:23:25 +0300
From:	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
To:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
CC:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [S+Q2 00/19] SLUB with queueing (V2) beats SLAB netperf TCP_RR

David Rientjes wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Jul 2010, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> 
>> The following patchset cleans some pieces up and then equips SLUB with
>> per cpu queues that work similar to SLABs queues.
> 
> Pekka, I think patches 4-8 could be applied to your tree now, they're 
> relatively unchanged from what's been posted before.  (I didn't ack patch 
> 9 because I think it makes slab_lock() -> slab_unlock() matching more 
> difficult with little win, but I don't feel strongly about it.)

Yup, I applied 4-8. Thanks guys!

> I'd also consider patch 7 for 2.6.35-rc6 (and -stable).

It's an obvious bug fix but is it triggered in practice? Is there a 
bugzilla report for that?
--
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/