linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] Slab infrastructure for array operations

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: <20150213023534.GA6592@js1304-P5Q-DELUXE>
Date:	Fri, 13 Feb 2015 11:35:34 +0900
From:	Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>
To:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>, akpm@...uxfoundation.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	penberg@...nel.org, iamjoonsoo@....com,
	Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] Slab infrastructure for array operations

On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 12:18:07PM -0800, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Feb 2015, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> 
> > > This patch is referencing functions that don't exist and can do so since
> > > it's not compiled, but I think this belongs in the next patch.  I also
> > > think that this particular implementation may be slub-specific so I would
> > > have expected just a call to an allocator-defined
> > > __kmem_cache_alloc_array() here with i = __kmem_cache_alloc_array().
> > 
> > The implementation is generic and can be used in the same way for SLAB.
> > SLOB does not have these types of object though.
> > 
> 
> Ok, I didn't know if the slab implementation would follow the same format 
> with the same callbacks or whether this would need to be cleaned up later.  

Hello, Christoph.

I also think that this implementation is slub-specific. For example,
in slab case, it is always better to access local cpu cache first than
page allocator since slab doesn't use list to manage free objects and
there is no cache line overhead like as slub. I think that,
in kmem_cache_alloc_array(), just call to allocator-defined
__kmem_cache_alloc_array() is better approach.

Thanks.
--
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/