Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Sat, 19 Feb 2022 11:59:41 +0000
From:   Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@gmail.com>
To:     David Laight <David.Laight@aculab.com>
Cc:     Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
        Christoph Lameter <cl@gentwo.org>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
        Christoph Lameter <cl@gentwo.de>,
        Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Pekka Enberg <penberg@kernel.org>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
        Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: Do we really need SLOB nowdays?
Message-ID: <YhDbrTSdSWQWFF91@ip-172-31-19-208.ap-northeast-1.compute.internal>
References: <alpine.DEB.2.22.394.2110251016260.3145@gentwo.de>
 <20211028100414.GA2928@kvm.asia-northeast3-a.c.our-ratio-313919.internal>
 <YXqSoo+b9RTclW/2@casper.infradead.org>
 <20211210110835.GA632811@odroid>
 <alpine.DEB.2.22.394.2112101305500.290446@gentwo.de>
 <cbfaeb40-13c7-15b6-177d-07b3f3c4a0a9@suse.cz>
 <20211215062904.GA1150813@odroid>
 <54c6fff8-8c79-463b-a359-96e37bd13674@suse.cz>
 <Yg9xSWEaTZLA+hYt@ip-172-31-19-208.ap-northeast-1.compute.internal>
 <7829ee15074448d5a7cec1a0e3c352d4@AcuMS.aculab.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <7829ee15074448d5a7cec1a0e3c352d4@AcuMS.aculab.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Feb 18, 2022 at 04:10:28PM +0000, David Laight wrote:
> From: Hyeonggon Yoo
> > Sent: 18 February 2022 10:13
> ...
> > I think SLUB can be memory-efficient as SLOB.
> > Is SLOB (Address-Ordered next^Wfirst fit) stronger to fragmentation than SLUB?
> 
> Dunno, but I had to patch the vxworks malloc to use 'best fit'
> because 'first fit' based on a fifo free list was really horrid.
> 
> I can't imagine an address ordered 'first fit' really being that much better.
> 
> There are probably a lot more allocs and frees than the kernel used to have.
> 
> Also isn't the performance of a 'first fit' going to get horrid
> when there are a lot of small items on the free list.

SLOB is focused on low memory usage, at the cost of poor performance.
Its speed is not a concern.

I think Address-Ordered sequential fit method pretty well in terms of
low memory usage.

And I think SLUB may replace SLOB, but we need to sure SLUB is
absolute winner.. I wonder How slab maintainers think?

> 
> Does SLUB split pages into 3s and 5s (on cache lime boundaries)
> as well as powers of 2?
>

SLUB/SLAB use different strategy than SLOB, for better allocation
performance. It's variant of segregated storage method.

SLUB/SLAB both creates dedicated "caches" for each type of object. for
example, on my system, there are slab cache for dentry(192), filp(256),
fs_cache(64) ... etc.

Objects that has different types are by default managed by different cache,
which holds manages of pages. slab caches can be merged for better cacheline
utilization.

SLUB/SLAB also creates global kmalloc caches at boot time for power of 2
objects and (128, 256, 512, 1K, 2K, 4K, 8K on my system).

Thanks,
Hyeonggon.

> 	David
> 
> -
> Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
> Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)
>