From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 14:36:52 -0800 (PST) From: Christoph Lameter Subject: Re: [patch 6/8] slub: Adjust order boundaries and minimum objects per slab. In-Reply-To: <20080303213412.GD10223@waste.org> Message-ID: References: <20080229044803.482012397@sgi.com> <20080229044819.800974712@sgi.com> <47C7BFFA.9010402@cs.helsinki.fi> <20080303213412.GD10223@waste.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Matt Mackall Cc: Pekka J Enberg , Mel Gorman , linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Mon, 3 Mar 2008, Matt Mackall wrote: > On the other hand, a single object can now pin 64k in memory rather > than 4k. So when we collapse some cache under memory pressure, we're > not likely to free as much. Right. > I know you've put a lot of effort into dealing with the dcache and > icache instances of this, but this could very well offset most of that. I developed and tested the icache and dcache stuff with order 3 allocs (when mm still had the initial higher order page use without fallbacks). > Also, we might consider only allocating an order-1 slab if we've > filled an order-0, and so on. When we hit pressure, we kick our > order counter back to 0. Hmmmm... Interesting idea. Is doable now since the size of the individual slab is no longer fixed. -- 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