Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750756AbWABPJL (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Jan 2006 10:09:11 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750771AbWABPJL (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Jan 2006 10:09:11 -0500 Received: from courier.cs.helsinki.fi ([128.214.9.1]:11912 "EHLO mail.cs.helsinki.fi") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750756AbWABPJK (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Jan 2006 10:09:10 -0500 Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2006 17:09:04 +0200 (EET) From: Pekka J Enberg To: Andi Kleen cc: Denis Vlasenko , Eric Dumazet , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [POLL] SLAB : Are the 32 and 192 bytes caches really usefull on x86_64 machines ? In-Reply-To: <200601021456.23253.ak@suse.de> Message-ID: References: <7vbqzadgmt.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <200601021345.44843.ak@suse.de> <200601021456.23253.ak@suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 839 Lines: 20 On Mon, 2 Jan 2006, Andi Kleen wrote: > I wasn't proposing fully dynamic slabs, just a better default set > of slabs based on real measurements instead of handwaving (like > the power of two slabs seemed to have been generated). With separate > sets for 32bit and 64bit. > > Also the goal wouldn't be better performance, but just less waste of memory. > > I suspect such a move could save much more memory on small systems > than any of these "make fundamental debugging tools a CONFIG" patches ever. I misunderstood what you were proposing. Sorry. It makes sense to measure it. Pekka - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/