[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.10.0902041049090.19633@qirst.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 10:49:46 -0500 (EST)
From: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
cc: Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>, 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>
Subject: Re: [patch] SLQB slab allocator (try 2)
On Tue, 3 Feb 2009, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > so the max_order is inclusive not exclusive. This will force the order-0
> > allocations I think you are looking for.
>
> Well, but in the case of really bad internal fragmentation in the page,
> SLAB will do order-1 allocations even if it doesn't strictly need to.
> Probably this isn't a huge deal, but I think if we do slub_min_objects=1,
> then SLUB won't care about number of objects per page, and slub_max_order=1
> will mean it stops caring about fragmentation after order-1. I think. Which
> would be pretty close to SLAB (depending on exactly how much fragmentation
> it cares about).
slub_max_order=0 will fore all possible slabs to order 0. This means that
some slabs that SLAB will run as order 1 will be order 0 under SLUB.
--
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