From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 10:06:22 -0700 (PDT) From: Christoph Lameter Subject: Re: [patch 1/3] slob: rework freelist handling In-Reply-To: <20070523071809.GC9449@wotan.suse.de> Message-ID: References: <20070523045938.GA29045@wotan.suse.de> <20070523050333.GB29045@wotan.suse.de> <20070523051152.GC29045@wotan.suse.de> <20070523052206.GD29045@wotan.suse.de> <20070523061702.GA9449@wotan.suse.de> <20070523071809.GC9449@wotan.suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Nick Piggin Cc: Matt Mackall , Andrew Morton , Linux Memory Management List List-ID: On Wed, 23 May 2007, Nick Piggin wrote: > > The following patch may help a little bit but not much. Hmmm... In order > > to reduce the space further we would also have to shrink all caches when > > boot is complete. Elimination of useless caches also would be good. > > Do you really want to go into this deeper? > > Well you asked the question what good is SLOB when we have SLUB, and the > answer, not surprisingly, still seems to be that it is better for memory > constrained environments. Well there is not much difference as far as I can see and we have not focuses on reducing memory wastage by caching. > I'm happy to test any patches from you. If you are able to make SLUB as > space efficient as SLOB on small systems, that would be great, and we > could talk about replacing that too. I think it would be a hefty task, > though. We can never get there given that SLOB has always been broken and we do not want to do the same but I think we can get close. I will sent you another patch today that will avoid keeping cpu slabs around. -- 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