From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 16:53:11 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <20070224.165311.71091931.davem@davemloft.net> Subject: Re: SLUB: The unqueued Slab allocator From: David Miller In-Reply-To: References: <20070223.215439.92580943.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org From: Christoph Lameter Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 09:32:49 -0800 (PST) Return-Path: To: clameter@engr.sgi.com Cc: kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com, andi@firstfloor.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: > On Fri, 23 Feb 2007, David Miller wrote: > > > I also agree with Andi in that merging could mess up how object type > > local lifetimes help reduce fragmentation in object pools. > > If that is a problem for particular object pools then we may be able to > except those from the merging. If it is a problem, it's going to be a problem "in general" and not for specific SLAB caches. I think this is really a very unwise idea. We have enough fragmentation problems as it is. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org