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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 27 Aug 2015 14:06:15 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To:	Navin Parakkal <navinp1912@...il.com>
cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: SLUB vs SLAB allocator with respect to 3.x and 4.x kernels

On Thu, 27 Aug 2015, 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 ?
> 

Slab doesn't have a reliance on high-order allocations for performance 
where fragmentation is a problem, it can use a smaller footprint due to 
slub's per-cpu partial slabs, it is faster on some networking round-robin 
benchmarks on nUMA machines, and it is has less impact when implementing 
full kmem accounting for memcg.
--
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/