[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0705081920250.17931@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 19:24:07 -0700 (PDT)
From: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
To: Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>
cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: + fix-spellings-of-slab-allocator-section-in-init-kconfig.patch
added to -mm tree
On Tue, 8 May 2007, Matt Mackall wrote:
> > > Yes. It can in fact put 512 8-byte objects in a 4k page. More
> >
> > So can SLUB.
>
> Not without at least a bit per-object of overhead. So you can either
> fit 512 objects in 4160 bytes or 504 objects in 4k.
Slub uses a linked list pointer in the page struct which is NULL if all
objects are allocated. There is no bit per object overhead.
> For the kmalloc case, we do have an 8-byte header, which works out to
> be about 1/8th of the slop that mainline kmalloc over SLAB has on
Exactly. That overhead does not exist in SLUB. Thus SLOB is less efficient
than SLUB.
> average due to power of two cache sizes. So in both cases, less
> overhead than SLAB and different-sized objects can be comingled. SLUB
> would be awfully hard-pressed to have lower space overhead.
Its simple and easy to do and it was done in SLUB.
-
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists