[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2d2d0eaa213e2d5cb9ea3f250e917314@smtp.hushmail.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 19:30:03 +0200
From: magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: calloc()/mmap() vs. fork()
On 2015-09-18 19:04, Solar Designer wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 06:49:22PM +0200, magnum wrote:
>> On 2015-09-17 20:53, Solar Designer wrote:
>>> I've just tried changing our mem_calloc() to make it actually use
>>> calloc(), and using it for the hash tables and bitmaps in loader.c.
>>
>> This was news to be, although git blame shows I should have been aware
>> of it. I regard it a bug and have now committed such a change.
>
> Now we'll need to look out for fork() performance regressions, if we
> start using mem_calloc() for anything large prior to fork().
BTW is that universally expected? Here's a crazy idea: We could keep it
one function, and use calloc() only unless --fork.
magnum
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
