From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: No, really, stop trying to delete slab until you've finished
 making slub perform as well
Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2008 12:13:51 -0500
Message-ID: <489738CF.7090401@linux-foundation.org>
References: <20080801182324.572058187@lameter.com>	 <20080803015847.GD26461@parisc-linux.org>	 <48970779.80902@linux-foundation.org> <2f11576a0808040947r69076eecv9ff92ecf583f7af2@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Matthew Wilcox <matthew@wil.cx>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi>,
	akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Mel Gorman <mel@skynet.ie>,
	andi@firstfloor.org, Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
	kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com
To: KOSAKI Motohiro <m-kosaki@ceres.dti.ne.jp>
Return-path: <linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:46672 "EHLO
	smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK)
	by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754783AbYHDROl (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 4 Aug 2008 13:14:41 -0400
In-Reply-To: <2f11576a0808040947r69076eecv9ff92ecf583f7af2@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org>

KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:

> When hackbench running, SLUB consume memory very largely than SLAB.
> then, SLAB often outperform SLUB in memory stavation state.
> 
> I don't know why memory comsumption different.
> Anyone know it?

Can you quantify the difference?

SLAB buffers objects in its queues. SLUB does rely more on the page allocator.
So SLAB may have its own reserves to fall back on.