linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm: remove all the slab allocators

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

Message-ID: <ZCpSU3ys00BC34BR@casper.infradead.org>
Date:   Mon, 3 Apr 2023 05:13:07 +0100
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To:     "Fabio M. De Francesco" <fmdefrancesco@...il.com>
Cc:     郭辉 <guohui@...ontech.com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, patches@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: remove all the slab allocators

On Mon, Apr 03, 2023 at 05:51:42AM +0200, Fabio M. De Francesco wrote:
> On Sun, 2 Apr 2023, 13:04 Matthew Wilcox, <willy@...radead.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Sun, Apr 02, 2023 at 05:09:14PM +0800, 郭辉 wrote:
> > > On 4/1/23 5:46 PM, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> > > > As the SLOB removal is on track and the SLAB removal is planned, I have
> > > > realized - why should we stop there and not remove also SLUB? What's a
> > > > slab allocator good for in 2023? The RAM sizes are getting larger and
> > > > the modules cheaper [1]. The object constructor trick was perhaps
> > > > interesting in 1994, but not with contemporary CPUs. So all the slab
> > > > allocator does today is just adding an unnecessary layer of complexity
> > > > over the page allocator.
> > >
> > > The slab allocator is very core and very important to the Linux kernel.
> > > After the patch is merged into the mainline, it will have a very profound
> > > impact on the development of the Linux kernel.
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_Fools%27_Day
> 
> 
> Wow!
> 
> The most interesting implication of this "patch" is that you noticed that
> some people may actually need the link above to be able to distinguish
> between foolishness and reality...

As the article says, this is a Western tradition, and we shouldn't
assume that somebody from (I assume) China would be familiar with this
particular foolishness ;-)