linux-kernel - Re: [Q] Default 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.2.00.1210151745400.31712@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date:	Mon, 15 Oct 2012 17:46:03 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To:	Ezequiel Garcia <elezegarcia@...il.com>
cc:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, Tim Bird <tim.bird@...sony.com>,
	celinux-dev@...ts.celinuxforum.org
Subject: Re: [Q] Default SLAB allocator

On Sat, 13 Oct 2012, Ezequiel Garcia wrote:

> But SLAB suffers from a lot more internal fragmentation than SLUB,
> which I guess is a known fact. So memory-constrained devices
> would waste more memory by using SLAB.

Even with slub's per-cpu partial lists?
--
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/