Re: [patch] SLQB slab allocator (try 2)

[KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>]

2009/2/19 Pekka Enberg <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi>:
> On Wed, 2009-02-18 at 09:48 +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
>> > > In addition, if pekka patch (SLAB_LIMIT = 8K) run on ia64, 16K allocation
>> > > always fallback to page allocator and using 64K (4 times memory consumption!).
>> >
>> > Yes, correct, but SLUB does that already by passing all allocations over
>> > 4K to the page allocator.
>>
>> hmhm
>> OK. my mail was pointless.
>>
>> but why? In my understanding, slab framework mainly exist for efficient
>> sub-page allocation.
>> the fallbacking of 4K allocation in 64K page-sized architecture seems
>> inefficient.
>
> I don't think any of the slab allocators are known for memory
> efficiency. That said, the original patch description sums up the
> rationale for page allocator pass-through:
>
> http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commitdiff;h=aadb4bc4a1f9108c1d0fbd121827c936c2ed4217
>
> Interesting enough, there seems to be some performance gain from it as
> well as seen by Mel Gorman's recent slab allocator benchmarks.

Honestly, I'm bit confusing.
above url's patch use PAGE_SIZE, but not 4K nor architecture independent value.
Your 4K mean PAGE_SIZE?

--
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: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>