On Mon, 1 Oct 2007 14:38:55 -0700 (PDT)
Christoph Lameter <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Oct 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> > Do slab and slub use the same underlying page size for each slab?
>
> SLAB cannot pack objects as dense as SLUB and they have different
> algorithm to make the choice of order. Thus the number of objects per slab
> may vary between SLAB and SLUB and therefore also the choice of order to
> store these objects.
>
> > Single data point: the CONFIG_SLAB boxes which I have access to here are
> > using order-0 for radix_tree_node, so they won't be failing in the way in
> > which Peter's machine is.
>
> Upstream SLUB uses order 0 allocations for the radix tree.
OK, that's a relief.
> MM varies
> because the use of higher order allocs is more loose if the mobility
> algorithms are found to be active:
>
> 2.6.23-rc8:
>
> Name Objects Objsize Space Slabs/Part/Cpu O/S O %Fr %Ef Flg\
> radix_tree_node 14281 552 9.9M 2432/948/1 7 0 38 79
Ah. So the already-dropped
slub-exploit-page-mobility-to-increase-allocation-order.patch was the
culprit?
-
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]
