From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 10:42:23 -0800 (PST) From: Christoph Lameter Subject: Re: SLUB: The unqueued Slab allocator In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Andi Kleen Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Thu, 22 Feb 2007, Andi Kleen wrote: > > SLUB does not need a cache reaper for UP systems. > > This means constructors/destructors are becomming worthless? > Can you describe your rationale why you think they don't make > sense on UP? Cache reaping has nothing to do with constructors and destructors. SLUB fully supports constructors and destructors. > > G. Slab merging > > > > We often have slab caches with similar parameters. SLUB detects those > > on bootup and merges them into the corresponding general caches. This > > leads to more effective memory use. > > Did you do any tests on what that does to long term memory fragmentation? > It is against the "object of same type have similar livetime and should > be clustered together" theory at least. I have done no tests in that regard and we would have to assess the impact that the merging has to overall system behavior. -- 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