Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755443Ab2JPAqH (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Oct 2012 20:46:07 -0400 Received: from mail-da0-f46.google.com ([209.85.210.46]:47649 "EHLO mail-da0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753900Ab2JPAqF (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Oct 2012 20:46:05 -0400 Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2012 17:46:03 -0700 (PDT) From: David Rientjes X-X-Sender: rientjes@chino.kir.corp.google.com To: Ezequiel Garcia cc: Andi Kleen , Linux Kernel Mailing List , linux-mm@kvack.org, Tim Bird , celinux-dev@lists.celinuxforum.org Subject: Re: [Q] Default SLAB allocator In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (DEB 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 504 Lines: 12 On Sat, 13 Oct 2012, Ezequiel Garcia wrote: > But SLAB suffers from a lot more internal fragmentation than SLUB, > which I guess is a known fact. So memory-constrained devices > would waste more memory by using SLAB. Even with slub's per-cpu partial lists? -- 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/