linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 16/18] slab: propagate tunables values

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: <0000013a8f5e3876-25f4d815-cf0a-4574-a321-60ad7a337aa7-000000@email.amazonses.com>
Date:	Tue, 23 Oct 2012 20:44:10 +0000
From:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
To:	Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
cc:	linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	cgroups@...r.kernel.org, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>, devel@...nvz.org,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
	Suleiman Souhlal <suleiman@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 16/18] slab: propagate tunables values

On Mon, 22 Oct 2012, Glauber Costa wrote:

> On 10/19/2012 11:51 PM, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > On Fri, 19 Oct 2012, Glauber Costa wrote:
> >
> >> SLAB allows us to tune a particular cache behavior with tunables.
> >> When creating a new memcg cache copy, we'd like to preserve any tunables
> >> the parent cache already had.
> >
> > SLAB and SLUB allow tuning. Could you come up with some way to put these
> > things into slab common and make it flexible so that the tuning could be
> > used for future allocators (like SLAM etc)?
> >
> They do, but they also do it very differently. Like slub uses sysfs,
> while slab don't.

Well yes that is something that I also want to make more general so that
all allocators support sysfs style display of status and tuning.

> I of course fully support the integration, I just don't think this
> should be a blocker for all kinds of work in the allocators. Converting
> slab to sysfs seems to be a major work, that you are already tackling.
> Were it simple, I believe it would be done already. Without it, this is
> pretty much a fake integration...

Well there is quite a bit of infrastructure that needs to be common in
order to get this done properly. I hope we will get around to that
someday.

--
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/