Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 16:53:11 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <20070224.165311.71091931.davem@davemloft.net>
To: clameter@engr.sgi.com
Cc: kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com, andi@firstfloor.org,
       akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
       linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: SLUB: The unqueued Slab allocator
From: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0702240931030.3912@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0702232145340.1872@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
	<20070223.215439.92580943.davem@davemloft.net>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0702240931030.3912@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 818
Lines: 21

From: Christoph Lameter <clameter@engr.sgi.com>
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 09:32:49 -0800 (PST)

> On Fri, 23 Feb 2007, David Miller wrote:
> 
> > I also agree with Andi in that merging could mess up how object type
> > local lifetimes help reduce fragmentation in object pools.
> 
> If that is a problem for particular object pools then we may be able to 
> except those from the merging.

If it is a problem, it's going to be a problem "in general"
and not for specific SLAB caches.

I think this is really a very unwise idea.  We have enough
fragmentation problems as it is.
-
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/