Re: [patch 1/3] slob: rework freelist handling

Christoph Lameter
2007-05-24T03:49:30Z

On Thu, 24 May 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:

> The reason SLOB is so space efficient really comes from Matt's no
> compromises design. The thrust of my patches were after seeing how slow
> it was on my 4GB system while testing the RCU implementation. They
> were primarily intended to speed up the thing, but retain all the same
> basic allocation algorithms -- a quirk of my implementation allowed
> smaller freelist indexes which was a bonus, but as Matt said, slob was
> still more efficient before the change.

Well as far as I understand Matt it seems that you still need 2 bytes per
alloc. That is still more than 0 that SLUB needs.

> What SLUB idea did you think I copied anyway?

The use of the page struct.