Re: [POLL] SLAB : Are the 32 and 192 bytes caches really usefull on x86_64 machines ?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


On Monday 02 January 2006 09:37, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> On 12/28/05, Andreas Kleen <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I remember the original slab paper from Bonwick actually mentioned that
> > power of two slabs are the worst choice for a malloc - but for some reason Linux
> > chose them anyways.
> Power of two sizes are bad because memory accesses tend to concentrate
> on the same cache lines but slab coloring should take care of that. So
> I don't think there's a problem with using power of twos for kmalloc()
> caches.

There is - who tells you it's the best possible distribution of memory? 


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

[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]
  Powered by Linux