* SLUB vs SLAB allocator with respect to 3.x and 4.x kernels
@ 2015-08-27 14:26 Navin Parakkal
2015-08-27 19:43 ` Austin S Hemmelgarn
2015-08-27 21:06 ` David Rientjes
0 siblings, 2 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Navin Parakkal @ 2015-08-27 14:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel
Hi,
I found that in many worst case scenarios like fragmention of
allocator , slub performs well than slab.
I also noticed that Centos /Ubuntu etc switched to SLUB but SLES
still uses SLAB in the default image.
Any particular reason where SLAB is the choice ?
I ask this since i find SLUB to be the default choice since 2.6.23 as
per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SLUB_(software)
Regards,
Navin
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: SLUB vs SLAB allocator with respect to 3.x and 4.x kernels
2015-08-27 14:26 SLUB vs SLAB allocator with respect to 3.x and 4.x kernels Navin Parakkal
@ 2015-08-27 19:43 ` Austin S Hemmelgarn
2015-08-27 21:06 ` David Rientjes
1 sibling, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Austin S Hemmelgarn @ 2015-08-27 19:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Navin Parakkal, linux-kernel
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 882 bytes --]
On 2015-08-27 10:26, Navin Parakkal wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I found that in many worst case scenarios like fragmention of
> allocator , slub performs well than slab.
> I also noticed that Centos /Ubuntu etc switched to SLUB but SLES
> still uses SLAB in the default image.
>
> Any particular reason where SLAB is the choice ?
>
>
> I ask this since i find SLUB to be the default choice since 2.6.23 as
> per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SLUB_(software)
>
IIRC, SLUB isn't available/reliable on some arches (that and in some
setups, the worst case scenarios are likely to never happen (for
example, a machine with 1T of RAM that get's rebooted daily isn't likely
to have significant issues with memory fragmentation)).
SLES probably hasn't switched because they're an enterprise distro,
which in turn means changing as little as possible when updating.
[-- Attachment #2: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature --]
[-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 3019 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: SLUB vs SLAB allocator with respect to 3.x and 4.x kernels
2015-08-27 14:26 SLUB vs SLAB allocator with respect to 3.x and 4.x kernels Navin Parakkal
2015-08-27 19:43 ` Austin S Hemmelgarn
@ 2015-08-27 21:06 ` David Rientjes
1 sibling, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: David Rientjes @ 2015-08-27 21:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Navin Parakkal; +Cc: linux-kernel
On Thu, 27 Aug 2015, Navin Parakkal wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I found that in many worst case scenarios like fragmention of
> allocator , slub performs well than slab.
> I also noticed that Centos /Ubuntu etc switched to SLUB but SLES
> still uses SLAB in the default image.
>
> Any particular reason where SLAB is the choice ?
>
Slab doesn't have a reliance on high-order allocations for performance
where fragmentation is a problem, it can use a smaller footprint due to
slub's per-cpu partial slabs, it is faster on some networking round-robin
benchmarks on nUMA machines, and it is has less impact when implementing
full kmem accounting for memcg.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2015-08-27 21:06 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2015-08-27 14:26 SLUB vs SLAB allocator with respect to 3.x and 4.x kernels Navin Parakkal
2015-08-27 19:43 ` Austin S Hemmelgarn
2015-08-27 21:06 ` David Rientjes
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.