From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from psmtp.com (na3sys010amx159.postini.com [74.125.245.159]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 626A96B005D for ; Tue, 2 Oct 2012 07:22:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: by ied10 with SMTP id 10so18097405ied.14 for ; Tue, 02 Oct 2012 04:22:41 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2012 08:22:41 -0300 Message-ID: Subject: sl[aou]b allocator comparison From: Ezequiel Garcia Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: linux-mm@kvack.org Hello, I'd like to know what's the current status of each allocator regarding its targeted scenario. According to my numbers: * slob very small static footprint, low internal fragmentation, doesn't scale well. targeted at really small embedded. * slub default allocator, low internal fragmentation, suites well most scenarios. * slab high internal fragmentation, we still have it because slub showed some unfixed (performance?) regression in some scenario. Anyone can add anything useful to this quick comparison? Thanks, Ezequiel. -- 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: email@kvack.org