From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 20:55:20 -0700 (PDT) From: Christoph Lameter Subject: Re: [patch 1/3] slob: rework freelist handling In-Reply-To: <20070524033925.GD14349@wotan.suse.de> Message-ID: References: <20070523051152.GC29045@wotan.suse.de> <20070523052206.GD29045@wotan.suse.de> <20070523061702.GA9449@wotan.suse.de> <20070523074636.GA10070@wotan.suse.de> <20070523193547.GE11115@waste.org> <20070524033925.GD14349@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 Thu, 24 May 2007, Nick Piggin wrote: > > Hummm... We have not tested with my patch yet. May save another 200k. > > Saved 12K. Shuld it have been more? I only applied the last patch you > sent (plus the initial SLUB_DEBUG fix). Yeah. The code size should have shrunk significantly. It seems that the inlining instead of saving memory as on x86_64 wasted memory and ate up the winnings through the shrink. Could you try the patch before to see how much actually is saved by shrinking? > Admittedly, I am not involved with any such tiny Linux projects, however > why should half of memory be available to userspace? What about a router > or firewall that basically does all work in kernel? It would also work fine with SLUB? Its about 12k code + data on x86_64. I doubt that this would be too much of an issue. -- 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