Re: SLUB: The unqueued Slab allocator

On Sat, 24 Feb 2007, Jörn Engel wrote:

> How much of a gain is the merging anyway?  Once you start having
> explicit whitelists or blacklists of pools that can be merged, one can
> start to wonder if the result is worth the effort.

It eliminates 50% of the slab caches. Thus it reduces the management 
overhead by half.

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: SLUB: The unqueued Slab allocator
    • From: Jörn Engel <[email protected]>

• References:
  • Re: SLUB: The unqueued Slab allocator
    • From: Christoph Lameter <[email protected]>
  • Re: SLUB: The unqueued Slab allocator
    • From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <[email protected]>
  • Re: SLUB: The unqueued Slab allocator
    • From: Christoph Lameter <[email protected]>
  • Re: SLUB: The unqueued Slab allocator
    • From: David Miller <[email protected]>
  • Re: SLUB: The unqueued Slab allocator
    • From: Christoph Lameter <[email protected]>
  • Re: SLUB: The unqueued Slab allocator
    • From: Jörn Engel <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: PREEMPT_RCU breaks anon_vma locking ?
• Next by Date: [PATCH] IPv6 anycast refcnt fix
• Previous by thread: Re: SLUB: The unqueued Slab allocator
• Next by thread: Re: SLUB: The unqueued Slab allocator
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]