[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.10.0902041507050.8154@qirst.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 15:09:15 -0500 (EST)
From: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
cc: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
"Zhang, Yanmin" <yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com>,
Lin Ming <ming.m.lin@...el.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [patch] SLQB slab allocator
On Wed, 4 Feb 2009, Nick Piggin wrote:
> That's very true, and we touched on this earlier. It is I guess
> you can say a downside of queueing. But an analogous situation
> in SLUB would be that lots of pages on the partial list with
> very few free objects, or freeing objects to pages with few
> objects in them. Basically SLUB will have to do the extra work
> in the fastpath.
But these are pages with mostly allocated objects and just a few objects
free. The SLAB case is far worse: You have N objects on a queue and they
are keeping possibly N pages away from the page allocator and in those
pages *nothing* is used.
--
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