Re: [patch] SLQB slab allocator (try 2)

[Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie>]

On Tue, Feb 03, 2009 at 10:50:54PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> On Tuesday 03 February 2009 22:28:52 Mel Gorman wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 03, 2009 at 09:36:24PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> 
> > > I'd be interested to see how slub performs if booted with
> > > slub_min_objects=1 (which should give similar order pages to SLAB and
> > > SLQB).
> >
> > Just to clarify on this last point, do you mean slub_max_order=0 to
> > force order-0 allocations in SLUB?
> 
> Hmm... I think slub_min_objects=1 should also do basically the same.
> Actually slub_min_object=1 and slub_max_order=1 should get closest I
> think.
> 

I'm going with slub_min_objects=1 and slub_max_order=0. A quick glance
of the source shows the calculation as

        for (order = max(min_order,
                                fls(min_objects * size - 1) - PAGE_SHIFT);
                        order <= max_order; order++) {

so the max_order is inclusive not exclusive. This will force the order-0
allocations I think you are looking for.

-- 
Mel Gorman
Part-time Phd Student                          Linux Technology Center
University of Limerick                         IBM Dublin Software Lab

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>