[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <46413A29.1000506@yahoo.com.au>
Date: Wed, 09 May 2007 13:04:09 +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 Wed, 9 May 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:
>>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?
>
>
> No I do not have any number beyond the efficiency calculations based on
> whole slabs. We would have to do some experiments to figure out how much
> space is actually wasted through partial slabs.
>
> If you just do straight allocation on a UP system then there is at maximum
> one partial slab per slabcache with SLUB.
>
> The situation becomes different with allocation and frees. Then we may
> have lots of partial slabs that we allocate from.
Yeah, but even then I think the SLUB approach is a very nice one for a
general purpose system. Don't get me wrong, SLOB definitely is not good
for that :)
> But the SLOB approach
> also will have holes to manage. So I do not see how this could be a
> benefit unless you only have a few precious pages and you need to put
> multiple object sizes into it. A 4M system still has 1000 pages.
Right, and it takes a long long time to do anything on my 4G system ;)
But that 4MB system might not even have 50 pages that you'd want to
use for slab.
--
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