linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] Lockless SLUB slowpaths for v3.1-rc1

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: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1108012101310.6871@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date:	Mon, 1 Aug 2011 21:05:05 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To:	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>
cc:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, hughd@...gle.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Lockless SLUB slowpaths for v3.1-rc1

On Mon, 1 Aug 2011, Pekka Enberg wrote:

> Btw, I haven't measured this recently but in my testing, SLAB has
> pretty much always used more memory than SLUB. So 'throwing more
> memory at the problem' is definitely a reasonable approach for SLUB.
> 

Yes, slub _did_ use more memory than slab until the alignment of 
struct page.  That cost an additional 128MB on each of these 64GB 
machines, while the total slab usage on the client machine systemwide is 
~75MB while running netperf TCP_RR with 160 threads.
--
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/