[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y37F4R2Wkw04qzgY@P9FQF9L96D.corp.robot.car>
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2022 17:16:17 -0800
From: Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>
To: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@...il.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, patches@...ts.linux.dev,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/12] mm, slub: lower the default slub_max_order with
CONFIG_SLUB_TINY
On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 06:11:55PM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> With CONFIG_SLUB_TINY we want to minimize memory overhead. By lowering
> the default slub_max_order we can make slab allocations use smaller
> pages. However depending on object sizes, order-0 might not be the best
> due to increased fragmentation. When testing on a 8MB RAM k210 system by
> Damien Le Moal [1], slub_max_order=1 had the best results, so use that
> as the default for CONFIG_SLUB_TINY.
>
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/6a1883c4-4c3f-545a-90e8-2cd805bcf4ae@opensource.wdc.com/
>
> Signed-off-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
Acked-by: Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>
Thanks!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists