linux-kernel - Re: SLUB vs SLAB allocator with respect to 3.x and 4.x kernels

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: <55DF686E.50309@gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 27 Aug 2015 15:43:42 -0400
From:	Austin S Hemmelgarn <ahferroin7@...il.com>
To:	Navin Parakkal <navinp1912@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: SLUB vs SLAB allocator with respect to 3.x and 4.x kernels

On 2015-08-27 10:26, Navin Parakkal wrote:
> Hi,
>
>   I  found that in many worst case scenarios like fragmention of
> allocator , slub performs well than slab.
>    I also noticed that Centos /Ubuntu etc switched to SLUB but SLES
> still uses SLAB in the default image.
>
> Any particular reason where SLAB is the choice ?
>
>
> I ask this since i find SLUB to be the default choice since 2.6.23 as
> per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SLUB_(software)
>
IIRC, SLUB isn't available/reliable on some arches (that and in some 
setups, the worst case scenarios are likely to never happen (for 
example, a machine with 1T of RAM that get's rebooted daily isn't likely 
to have significant issues with memory fragmentation)).

SLES probably hasn't switched because they're an enterprise distro, 
which in turn means changing as little as possible when updating.



Download attachment "smime.p7s" of type "application/pkcs7-signature" (3019 bytes)