linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next] net: allocate skbs on local node

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.2.00.1010120745360.31832@router.home>
Date:	Tue, 12 Oct 2010 07:50:27 -0500 (CDT)
From:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
To:	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Michael Chan <mchan@...adcom.com>,
	Eilon Greenstein <eilong@...adcom.com>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...nel.dk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net:  allocate skbs on local node

On Tue, 12 Oct 2010, Pekka Enberg wrote:

> There's little point in discussing the removal of SLAB as long as there are
> performance regressions for real workloads from people who are willing to
> share results and test patches. I'm optimistic that we'll be able to try
> removing SLAB some time next year unless something interesting pops up...

Hmmm. Given these effects I think we should be more cautious regarding the
unification work. May be the "unified allocator" should replace SLAB
instead and SLUB can stay unchanged? The unification patches go back to
the one lock per node SLAB thing because the queue maintenance overhead is
otherwise causing large regressions in hackbench because of lots of atomic
ops. The per node lock seem to be causing problems here in the network
stack,. Take the unified as a SLAB cleanup instead? Then at least we have
a large common code base and just differentiate through the locking
mechanism?

--
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/