From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 16:14:48 -0800 (PST) From: Christoph Lameter Subject: Re: SLUB: The unqueued Slab allocator In-Reply-To: <20070224193322.GA17276@lazybastard.org> Message-ID: References: <20070224142835.4c7a3207.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20070223.215439.92580943.davem@davemloft.net> <20070224193322.GA17276@lazybastard.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="-1700579579-637110898-1172362488=:4891" Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: =?utf-8?B?SsO2cm4=?= Engel 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: ---1700579579-637110898-1172362488=:4891 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE On Sat, 24 Feb 2007, J=F6rn Engel wrote: > 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. It eliminates 50% of the slab caches. Thus it reduces the management=20 overhead by half. ---1700579579-637110898-1172362488=:4891-- -- 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