From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <469342DC.8070007@yahoo.com.au> Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 18:27:08 +1000 From: Nick Piggin MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [patch 09/10] Remove the SLOB allocator for 2.6.23 References: <20070708034952.022985379@sgi.com> <20070708035018.074510057@sgi.com> <20070708075119.GA16631@elte.hu> <20070708110224.9cd9df5b.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <4691A415.6040208@yahoo.com.au> <84144f020707090404l657a62c7x89d7d06b3dd6c34b@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Pekka J Enberg Cc: Christoph Lameter , Andrew Morton , Ingo Molnar , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, suresh.b.siddha@intel.com, corey.d.gough@intel.com, Matt Mackall , Denis Vlasenko , Erik Andersen List-ID: Pekka J Enberg wrote: > Curious, /proc/meminfo immediately after boot shows: > > SLUB (debugging enabled): > > (none):~# cat /proc/meminfo > MemTotal: 30260 kB > MemFree: 22096 kB > > SLUB (debugging disabled): > > (none):~# cat /proc/meminfo > MemTotal: 30276 kB > MemFree: 22244 kB > > SLOB: > > (none):~# cat /proc/meminfo > MemTotal: 30280 kB > MemFree: 22004 kB > > That's 92 KB advantage for SLUB with debugging enabled and 240 KB when > debugging is disabled. Interesting. What kernel version are you using? > Nick, Matt, care to retest SLUB and SLOB for your setups? I don't think there has been a significant change in the area of memory efficiency in either since I last tested, and Christoph and I both produced the same result. I can't say where SLOB is losing its memory, but there are a few places that can still be improved, so I might get keen and take another look at it once all the improvements to both allocators gets upstream. -- SUSE Labs, Novell Inc. -- 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