From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 12:18:58 -0700 (PDT) From: Christoph Lameter Subject: Re: [patch 1/3] slob: rework freelist handling In-Reply-To: <20070522145345.GN11115@waste.org> Message-ID: References: <20070522073910.GD17051@wotan.suse.de> <20070522145345.GN11115@waste.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Matt Mackall Cc: Nick Piggin , Andrew Morton , Linux Memory Management List List-ID: On Tue, 22 May 2007, Matt Mackall wrote: > On Tue, May 22, 2007 at 09:39:10AM +0200, Nick Piggin wrote: > > Here are some patches I have been working on for SLOB, which makes > > it significantly faster, and also using less dynamic memory... at > > the cost of being slightly larger static footprint and more complex > > code. > > > > Matt was happy for the first 2 to go into -mm (and hasn't seen patch 3 yet). > > These all look good, thanks Nick! > > Acked-by: Matt Mackall New SLUB inspired life for SLOB. I hope someone else tests this? Are there any numbers / tests that give a continued reason for the existence of SLOB? I.e. show some memory usage on a real system that is actually lower than SLAB/SLUB? Or are there any confirmed platforms where SLOB is needed? -- 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