[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <469342DC.8070007@yahoo.com.au>
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 18:27:08 +1000
From: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
To: Pekka J Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
CC: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.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
Pekka J Enberg wrote:
> Curious, /proc/meminfo immediately after boot shows:
>
> SLUB (debugging enabled):
>
> (none):~# cat /proc/meminfo
> MemTotal: 30260 kB
> MemFree: 22096 kB
>
> SLUB (debugging disabled):
>
> (none):~# cat /proc/meminfo
> MemTotal: 30276 kB
> MemFree: 22244 kB
>
> SLOB:
>
> (none):~# cat /proc/meminfo
> MemTotal: 30280 kB
> MemFree: 22004 kB
>
> That's 92 KB advantage for SLUB with debugging enabled and 240 KB when
> debugging is disabled.
Interesting. What kernel version are you using?
> Nick, Matt, care to retest SLUB and SLOB for your setups?
I don't think there has been a significant change in the area of
memory efficiency in either since I last tested, and Christoph and
I both produced the same result.
I can't say where SLOB is losing its memory, but there are a few
places that can still be improved, so I might get keen and take
another look at it once all the improvements to both allocators
gets upstream.
--
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