linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] SLUB: Mark merged slab caches in /proc/slabinfo

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:	Wed, 15 Sep 2010 00:00:19 +0300
From:	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>
To:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
CC:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] SLUB: Mark merged slab caches in /proc/slabinfo

  On 14.9.2010 23.56, David Rientjes wrote:
>> In my not-so-humble opinion, either the merging needs to go away
>> entirely, or the misleading output needs to be fixed.
> Cache merging may have been advertised as a bigger performance improvement
> than it actually is, and I don't do it in my own slab allocator for other
> reasons, but it does lead to more effective memory use by reducing slab
> fragmentation.  On one of my benchmarking servers, over 60% of caches are
> merged and /sys/kernel/slab/.../partial reports roughly the same percent
> of fewer total partial slabs over the system in comparison to
> slub_nomerge.
Last time I checked (and it's been a while), it did reduce _internal 
fragmentation_ for the naive "memory used after boot" scenario. I don't 
think I ever advertised it as a performance improvement. Dunno if 
somebody else did.

             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/