[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <84144f020707090404l657a62c7x89d7d06b3dd6c34b@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2007 14:04:24 +0300
From: "Pekka Enberg" <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
To: "Nick Piggin" <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
Cc: "Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...e.hu>,
"Christoph Lameter" <clameter@....com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...r.kernel.org,
suresh.b.siddha@...el.com, corey.d.gough@...el.com,
"Matt Mackall" <mpm@...enic.com>,
"Denis Vlasenko" <vda.linux@...glemail.com>,
"Erik Andersen" <andersen@...epoet.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 09/10] Remove the SLOB allocator for 2.6.23
Hi Nick,
On 7/9/07, Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au> wrote:
> SLOB contains several significant O(1) and also O(n) memory savings that
> are so far impossible-by-design for SLUB. They are: slab external
> fragmentation is significantly reduced; kmalloc internal fragmentation is
> significantly reduced; order of magnitude smaller kmem_cache data type;
> order of magnitude less code...
I assume with "slab external fragmentation" you mean allocating a
whole page for a slab when there are not enough objects to fill the
whole thing thus wasting memory? We could try to combat that by
packing multiple variable-sized slabs within a single page. Also,
adding some non-power-of-two kmalloc caches might help with internal
fragmentation.
In any case, SLUB needs some serious tuning for smaller machines
before we can get rid of SLOB.
-
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