From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail137.messagelabs.com (mail137.messagelabs.com [216.82.249.19]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 135336B0169 for ; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 10:15:09 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 09:15:03 -0500 (CDT) From: Christoph Lameter Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Lockless SLUB slowpaths for v3.1-rc1 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <1312145146.24862.97.camel@jaguar> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: David Rientjes Cc: Pekka Enberg , Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , hughd@google.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org On Mon, 1 Aug 2011, David Rientjes wrote: > On Mon, 1 Aug 2011, Pekka Enberg wrote: > > > Btw, I haven't measured this recently but in my testing, SLAB has > > pretty much always used more memory than SLUB. So 'throwing more > > memory at the problem' is definitely a reasonable approach for SLUB. > > > > Yes, slub _did_ use more memory than slab until the alignment of > struct page. That cost an additional 128MB on each of these 64GB > machines, while the total slab usage on the client machine systemwide is > ~75MB while running netperf TCP_RR with 160 threads. I guess that calculation did not include metadata structures (alien caches and the NR_CPU arrays in kmem_cache) etc? These are particularly costly on SLAB. -- 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/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: email@kvack.org