linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] SLAB changes for v3.10

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, 8 May 2013 14:48:17 -0400
From:	Chris Mason <clmason@...ionio.com>
To:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
CC:	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] SLAB changes for v3.10

Quoting Christoph Lameter (2013-05-08 14:25:49)
> On Wed, 8 May 2013, Chris Mason wrote:
> 
> > This patch fixes things for me, but to maintain the rules from
> > Christoph's patch,  kmalloc_caches[2] should have been created whenever
> > kmalloc_caches[7] was done.
> 
> Not necessary. The early slab bootstrap must create some slab caches of
> specific sizes, it will only use those during very early bootstrap.
> 
> The later creation of the array must skip those.
> 
> You correctly moved the checks out of the if (!kmalloc_cacheS())
> condition so that the caches are created properly.

But if the ordering is required at all, why is it ok to create cache 2
after cache 6 instead of after cache 7?

IOW if we can safely do cache 2 after cache 6, why can't we just do both
cache 1 and cache 2 after the loop?

-chris
--
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/