linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 00/19] The new cgroup slab memory controller

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: <CALvZod4vLQb4kns=ao8btL_g--9axZfcaxhMnj+CoTrCkyWoWQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 16 Jun 2020 20:05:39 -0700
From:   Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>
To:     Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Kernel Team <kernel-team@...com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 00/19] The new cgroup slab memory controller

On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 7:41 PM Roman Gushchin <guro@...com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 06:46:56PM -0700, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 4:07 PM Roman Gushchin <guro@...com> wrote:
> > >
[...]
> >
> > Have you performed any [perf] testing on SLAB with this patchset?
>
> The accounting part is the same for SLAB and SLUB, so there should be no
> significant difference. I've checked that it compiles, boots and passes
> kselftests. And that memory savings are there.
>

What about performance? Also you mentioned that sharing kmem-cache
between accounted and non-accounted can have additional overhead. Any
difference between SLAB and SLUB for such a case?