From: Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>
To: Pekka Enberg <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi>
Cc: Denis Vlasenko <vda@ilport.com.ua>,
Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [POLL] SLAB : Are the 32 and 192 bytes caches really usefull on x86_64 machines ?
Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2006 13:45:44 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200601021345.44843.ak@suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <84144f020601020037n7af7ac54l74cdbe602372c7f@mail.gmail.com>
On Monday 02 January 2006 09:37, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> On 12/28/05, Andreas Kleen <ak@suse.de> 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?
-Andi
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-01-02 12:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-12-21 8:00 [ANNOUNCE] GIT 1.0.0 Junio C Hamano
2005-12-21 9:11 ` [POLL] SLAB : Are the 32 and 192 bytes caches really usefull on x86_64 machines ? Eric Dumazet
2005-12-21 9:22 ` David S. Miller
2005-12-21 10:03 ` Jan-Benedict Glaw
2005-12-21 9:46 ` Alok kataria
2005-12-21 12:44 ` Ed Tomlinson
2005-12-21 13:20 ` Folkert van Heusden
2005-12-21 13:38 ` Eric Dumazet
2005-12-21 14:09 ` Folkert van Heusden
2005-12-21 16:40 ` Dave Jones
2005-12-21 19:36 ` Folkert van Heusden
2005-12-28 8:32 ` Denis Vlasenko
2005-12-28 8:54 ` Denis Vlasenko
2005-12-28 17:57 ` Andreas Kleen
2005-12-28 21:01 ` Matt Mackall
2005-12-29 1:26 ` Dave Jones
2005-12-30 4:06 ` Steven Rostedt
2006-01-02 8:46 ` Pekka Enberg
2006-01-02 8:51 ` Pekka Enberg
2006-01-02 12:33 ` Steven Rostedt
2006-01-02 12:31 ` Steven Rostedt
2005-12-29 1:29 ` Dave Jones
2005-12-29 1:50 ` Keith Owens
2005-12-29 2:39 ` Dave Jones
2006-01-02 15:03 ` Helge Hafting
2006-01-04 5:26 ` Dave Jones
2005-12-30 21:13 ` Marcelo Tosatti
2005-12-31 20:13 ` Andi Kleen
2005-12-29 19:48 ` Steven Rostedt
2005-12-29 21:16 ` Andi Kleen
2006-01-02 8:37 ` Pekka Enberg
2006-01-02 12:45 ` Andi Kleen [this message]
2006-01-02 13:04 ` Pekka J Enberg
2006-01-02 13:56 ` Andi Kleen
2006-01-02 15:09 ` Pekka J Enberg
2006-01-02 15:46 ` Jörn Engel
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=200601021345.44843.ak@suse.de \
--to=ak@suse.de \
--cc=dada1@cosmosbay.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=penberg@cs.helsinki.fi \
--cc=vda@ilport.com.ua \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.