[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1199438251.7143.2.camel@twins>
Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2008 10:17:31 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>,
Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
William Lee Irwin III <wli@...omorphy.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] procfs: provide slub's /proc/slabinfo
On Fri, 2008-01-04 at 03:45 +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > I still have trouble to see that SLOB still has much to offer. An embedded
> > allocator that in many cases has more allocation overhead than the default
> > one? Ok you still have advantages if allocations are rounded up to the
> > next power of two for a kmalloc and because of the combining of different
> > types of allocations in a single slab if there are an overall small number
> > of allocations. If one would create a custom slab for the worst problems
> > there then this may also go away.
>
> I suspect it would be a good idea anyways to reevaluate the power of two
> slabs. Perhaps a better distribution can be found based on some profiling?
> I did profile kmalloc using a systemtap script some time ago but don't
> remember the results exactly, but iirc it looked like it could be improved.
I remember wli trying to work out a series that had minimal
fragmentation. IIRC he was mixing a fibonaci series with the power of
two series.
Bill, do you remember getting anywhere?
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (190 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists