[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4641353F.2000408@yahoo.com.au>
Date: Wed, 09 May 2007 12:43:11 +1000
From: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
To: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
CC: Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
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
Christoph Lameter wrote:
> 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.
What you trade for that is that one page page can only serve one slab.
For small systems, I would not be surprised if that was less space
efficient, even just looking at kmalloc caches in isolation. Or do you
have numbers to support your conclusion?
--
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
-
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