Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751762AbXBVSm2 (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Feb 2007 13:42:28 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751757AbXBVSm2 (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Feb 2007 13:42:28 -0500 Received: from netops-testserver-4-out.sgi.com ([192.48.171.29]:51066 "EHLO netops-testserver-4.corp.sgi.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751762AbXBVSm1 (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Feb 2007 13:42:27 -0500 Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 10:42:23 -0800 (PST) From: Christoph Lameter To: Andi Kleen cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org Subject: Re: SLUB: The unqueued Slab allocator In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1151 Lines: 29 On Thu, 22 Feb 2007, Andi Kleen wrote: > > SLUB does not need a cache reaper for UP systems. > > This means constructors/destructors are becomming worthless? > Can you describe your rationale why you think they don't make > sense on UP? Cache reaping has nothing to do with constructors and destructors. SLUB fully supports constructors and destructors. > > G. Slab merging > > > > We often have slab caches with similar parameters. SLUB detects those > > on bootup and merges them into the corresponding general caches. This > > leads to more effective memory use. > > Did you do any tests on what that does to long term memory fragmentation? > It is against the "object of same type have similar livetime and should > be clustered together" theory at least. I have done no tests in that regard and we would have to assess the impact that the merging has to overall system behavior. - 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/