From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from psmtp.com (na3sys010amx195.postini.com [74.125.245.195]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C3AE56B0073 for ; Mon, 15 Oct 2012 20:46:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-pb0-f41.google.com with SMTP id rq2so6135931pbb.14 for ; Mon, 15 Oct 2012 17:46:05 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2012 17:46:03 -0700 (PDT) From: David Rientjes Subject: Re: [Q] Default SLAB allocator In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Ezequiel Garcia Cc: Andi Kleen , Linux Kernel Mailing List , linux-mm@kvack.org, Tim Bird , celinux-dev@lists.celinuxforum.org On Sat, 13 Oct 2012, Ezequiel Garcia wrote: > But SLAB suffers from a lot more internal fragmentation than SLUB, > which I guess is a known fact. So memory-constrained devices > would waste more memory by using SLAB. Even with slub's per-cpu partial lists? -- 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