Christoph Lameter wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jul 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:
A reason for retaining slob would be that it has some O(n) memory saving
due to better packing, etc. Indeed that was the reason for merging it in
the first place. If slob no longer retains that advantage (wrt slub) then
we no longer need it.
SLOB contains several significant O(1) and also O(n) memory savings that
are so far impossible-by-design for SLUB. They are: slab external
fragmentation is significantly reduced; kmalloc internal fragmentation is
significantly reduced; order of magnitude smaller kmem_cache data type;
order of magnitude less code...
Well that is only true for kmalloc objects < PAGE_SIZE and to some extend
offset by the need to keep per object data in SLUB. 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. SLUB has less wastage
there than SLAB since it can fit power of two object tightly into a slab
instead of having to place additional control information there like SLAB.
OK but we're talking about SLOB. And the number that matters is the amount
of memory used, which is higher with SLUB than with SLOB in our tests.
O(n) memory savings? What is that?
Allocate n things and your memory waste is proportional to n (well that's
O(n) waste, so I guess by savings I mean that SLOB's memory saving compared
to SLUB are proportional to n).
--
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
-
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]
