Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753135AbYJWOPJ (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Oct 2008 10:15:09 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754091AbYJWOOo (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Oct 2008 10:14:44 -0400 Received: from mail-gx0-f16.google.com ([209.85.217.16]:35280 "EHLO mail-gx0-f16.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753504AbYJWOOn (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Oct 2008 10:14:43 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :references:x-google-sender-auth; b=K1vqCNqfAgC09h7FrePh5eJE/0X/Y4JFmMJCPNKpA19svx+6Cl8t05ye/JkHv/m0CP /bEOyZKRcOxLu1faJzw/0NRYONAFWKQcNp8X6Bpl5nLUbRrheKhRsgg0JzKIyrMLuDCj ooCGRmgGe9G/43r9DA14SjmHdLi6e7zb1uOlk= Message-ID: <84144f020810230714g7f5d36bas812ad691140ee453@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 17:14:41 +0300 From: "Pekka Enberg" To: "Christoph Lameter" Subject: Re: SLUB defrag pull request? Cc: "Miklos Szeredi" , nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au, hugh@veritas.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <1223883004.31587.15.camel@penberg-laptop> <84144f020810221348j536f0d84vca039ff32676e2cc@mail.gmail.com> <1224745831.25814.21.camel@penberg-laptop> <84144f020810230658o7c6b3651k2d671aab09aa71fb@mail.gmail.com> X-Google-Sender-Auth: 503f1e1927749f7d Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 928 Lines: 18 On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 5:09 PM, Christoph Lameter wrote: > Got a draft of a patch here that does freelist handling differently. Instead > of building linked lists it uses free objects to build arrays of pointers to > free objects. That improves cache cold free behavior since the object > contents itself does not have to be touched on free. > > The problem looks like its freeing objects on a different processor that > where it was used last. With the pointer array it is only necessary to touch > the objects that contain the arrays. Interesting. SLAB gets away with this because of per-cpu caches or because it uses the bufctls instead of a freelist? -- 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/