From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 19:33:23 +0000 From: =?utf-8?B?SsO2cm4=?= Engel Subject: Re: SLUB: The unqueued Slab allocator Message-ID: <20070224193322.GA17276@lazybastard.org> References: <20070224142835.4c7a3207.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20070223.215439.92580943.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Christoph Lameter Cc: David Miller , kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com, andi@firstfloor.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Sat, 24 February 2007 09:32:49 -0800, Christoph Lameter wrote: > > If that is a problem for particular object pools then we may be able to > except those from the merging. How much of a gain is the merging anyway? Once you start having explicit whitelists or blacklists of pools that can be merged, one can start to wonder if the result is worth the effort. JA?rn -- Joern's library part 6: http://www.gzip.org/zlib/feldspar.html -- 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