From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 07:15:11 -0800 (PST) From: Christoph Lameter Subject: Re: SLUB: The unqueued Slab allocator In-Reply-To: <84144f020702220249k37306252q627bf3ceb28e8b5d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: References: <84144f020702220249k37306252q627bf3ceb28e8b5d@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Pekka Enberg Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Thu, 22 Feb 2007, Pekka Enberg wrote: > On 2/22/07, Christoph Lameter wrote: > > This is a new slab allocator which was motivated by the complexity of the > > existing code in mm/slab.c. It attempts to address a variety of concerns > > with the existing implementation. > > So do you want to add a new allocator or replace slab? Add. The performance and quality is not comparable to SLAB at this point. > On 2/22/07, Christoph Lameter wrote: > > B. Storage overhead of object queues > > Does this make sense for non-NUMA too? If not, can we disable the > queues for NUMA in current slab? Given the locking scheme in the current slab you cannot do that. Otherwise there will be a single lock taken for every operation limiting performace > On 2/22/07, Christoph Lameter wrote: > > C. SLAB metadata overhead > > Can be done for the current slab code too, no? The per slab metadata of the SLAB does not fit into the page_struct. -- 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