From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 21:35:52 -0700 (PDT) From: Christoph Lameter Subject: Re: [patch 1/3] slob: rework freelist handling In-Reply-To: <20070524043144.GB12121@wotan.suse.de> Message-ID: References: <20070523061702.GA9449@wotan.suse.de> <20070523074636.GA10070@wotan.suse.de> <20070523193547.GE11115@waste.org> <20070524033925.GD14349@wotan.suse.de> <20070524041339.GC20252@wotan.suse.de> <20070524043144.GB12121@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: > I'll take an educated guess and say that SLUB would have more external > fragmentation which would be especially pronounced in small memory > setups. Also, that SLUB's kmalloc slabs would suffer from a lot more > internal fragmentation too, which could be equally significant if not > more (I think this would become relatively more significant than external > fregmentation as you increased memory size). Hmmmm... Could be. The kmalloc array is potentially wasting a lot of memory. I added more smaller kmalloc array elements to SLUB to avoid that but maybe that is not enough. > If you don't think the test is very interesting, I could try any other > sort of test and with i386 or x86-64 if you like. Let me try some tests on my own first. Just ran a SLOB baseline, should have some numbers soon. -- 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