[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090203120139.GM9840@csn.ul.ie>
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 12:01:39 +0000
From: Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>
To: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
Cc: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Lin Ming <ming.m.lin@...el.com>,
"Zhang, Yanmin" <yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [patch] SLQB slab allocator (try 2)
On Tue, Feb 03, 2009 at 10:50:54PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> On Tuesday 03 February 2009 22:28:52 Mel Gorman wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 03, 2009 at 09:36:24PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
>
> > > I'd be interested to see how slub performs if booted with
> > > slub_min_objects=1 (which should give similar order pages to SLAB and
> > > SLQB).
> >
> > Just to clarify on this last point, do you mean slub_max_order=0 to
> > force order-0 allocations in SLUB?
>
> Hmm... I think slub_min_objects=1 should also do basically the same.
> Actually slub_min_object=1 and slub_max_order=1 should get closest I
> think.
>
I'm going with slub_min_objects=1 and slub_max_order=0. A quick glance
of the source shows the calculation as
for (order = max(min_order,
fls(min_objects * size - 1) - PAGE_SHIFT);
order <= max_order; order++) {
so the max_order is inclusive not exclusive. This will force the order-0
allocations I think you are looking for.
--
Mel Gorman
Part-time Phd Student Linux Technology Center
University of Limerick IBM Dublin Software Lab
--
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