Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753499AbaGBOpD (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Jul 2014 10:45:03 -0400 Received: from qmta09.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.30.96]:42330 "EHLO qmta09.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751538AbaGBOpB (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Jul 2014 10:45:01 -0400 Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2014 09:44:57 -0500 (CDT) From: Christoph Lameter To: Sasha Levin cc: Andrew Morton , David Rientjes , Wei Yang , Pekka Enberg , Matt Mackall , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , LKML , Dave Jones Subject: Re: mm: slub: invalid memory access in setup_object In-Reply-To: <53B32D80.8000601@oracle.com> Message-ID: References: <53AAFDF7.2010607@oracle.com> <20140701144947.5ce3f93729759d8f38d7813a@linux-foundation.org> <53B32D80.8000601@oracle.com> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 1 Jul 2014, Sasha Levin wrote: > Is there a better way to stress test slub? The typical way to test is by stressing the network subsystem with small packets that require small allocations. Or do a filesystem test that requires lots of metadata (file creations, removal, renames etc). But I also posted some in kernel benchmarks a while back https://lkml.org/lkml/2009/10/13/459 Pekka had a project going to get these merged. https://lkml.org/lkml/2009/11/29/17 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/