linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] slub: Support 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: <20150217052612.GD15413@js1304-P5Q-DELUXE>
Date:	Tue, 17 Feb 2015 14:26:13 +0900
From:	Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>
To:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
Cc:	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 2/3] slub: Support for array operations

On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 09:49:24AM -0600, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Feb 2015, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> 
> > > +			*p++ = freelist;
> > > +			freelist = get_freepointer(s, freelist);
> > > +			allocated++;
> > > +		}
> >
> > Fetching all objects with holding node lock could result in enomourous
> > lock contention. How about getting free ojbect pointer without holding
> > the node lock? We can temporarilly store all head of freelists in
> > array p and can fetch each object pointer without holding node lock.
> 
> 
> Could do that but lets first see if there is really an issue. The other
> cpu sharing the same partial lists presumaly have cpu local objects to get
> through first before they hit this lock.

Okay.

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/