On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 09:06:46 -0700 (PDT) Christoph Lameter <[email protected]> wrote:
> But yes the power of
> two caches are a necessary design feature of SLAB/SLUB that allows O(1)
> operations of kmalloc slabs which in turns causes memory wastage because
> of rounding of the alloc to the next power of two.
I've frequently wondered why we don't just create more caches for kmalloc:
make it denser than each-power-of-2-plus-a-few-others-in-between.
I assume the tradeoff here is better packing versus having a ridiculous
number of caches. Is there any other cost?
Because even having 1024 caches wouldn't consume a terrible amount of
memory and I bet it would result in aggregate savings.
Of course, a scheme which creates kmalloc caches on-demand would be better,
but that would kill our compile-time cache selection, I suspect.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[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]
