[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0707090859100.13970@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2007 09:00:30 -0700 (PDT)
From: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...r.kernel.org,
suresh.b.siddha@...el.com, corey.d.gough@...el.com,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 09/10] Remove the SLOB allocator for 2.6.23
On Sun, 8 Jul 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> actually, one real advantage of the SLOB is that it is a minimal, really
> simple allocator. Its text and data size is so small as well.
>
> here's the size comparison:
>
> text data bss dec hex filename
> 10788 837 16 11641 2d79 mm/slab.o
> 6205 4207 124 10536 2928 mm/slub.o
> 1640 44 4 1688 698 mm/slob.o
>
> slab/slub have roughly the same footprint, but slob is 10% of that size.
> Would be a waste to throw this away.
The last of my tests showed that SLOB is at about 50% of the size of
SLUB. You need to compile SLUB in embedded mode with !CONFIG_SLUB_DEBUG to
get a reduce code size.
-
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