From: Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>
To: Pekka Enberg <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi>
Cc: Denis Vlasenko <vda@ilport.com.ua>,
Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [POLL] SLAB : Are the 32 and 192 bytes caches really usefull on x86_64 machines ?
Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2006 13:45:44 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200601021345.44843.ak@suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <84144f020601020037n7af7ac54l74cdbe602372c7f@mail.gmail.com>
On Monday 02 January 2006 09:37, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> On 12/28/05, Andreas Kleen <ak@suse.de> wrote:
> > I remember the original slab paper from Bonwick actually mentioned that
> > power of two slabs are the worst choice for a malloc - but for some reason Linux
> > chose them anyways.
>
> Power of two sizes are bad because memory accesses tend to concentrate
> on the same cache lines but slab coloring should take care of that. So
> I don't think there's a problem with using power of twos for kmalloc()
> caches.
There is - who tells you it's the best possible distribution of memory?
-Andi
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-01-02 12:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-12-21 8:00 [ANNOUNCE] GIT 1.0.0 Junio C Hamano
2005-12-21 9:11 ` [POLL] SLAB : Are the 32 and 192 bytes caches really usefull on x86_64 machines ? Eric Dumazet
2005-12-21 9:22 ` David S. Miller
2005-12-21 10:03 ` Jan-Benedict Glaw
2005-12-21 9:46 ` Alok kataria
2005-12-21 12:44 ` Ed Tomlinson
2005-12-21 13:20 ` Folkert van Heusden
2005-12-21 13:38 ` Eric Dumazet
2005-12-21 14:09 ` Folkert van Heusden
2005-12-21 16:40 ` Dave Jones
2005-12-21 19:36 ` Folkert van Heusden
2005-12-28 8:32 ` Denis Vlasenko
2005-12-28 8:54 ` Denis Vlasenko
2005-12-28 17:57 ` Andreas Kleen
2005-12-28 21:01 ` Matt Mackall
2005-12-29 1:26 ` Dave Jones
2005-12-30 4:06 ` Steven Rostedt
2006-01-02 8:46 ` Pekka Enberg
2006-01-02 8:51 ` Pekka Enberg
2006-01-02 12:33 ` Steven Rostedt
2006-01-02 12:31 ` Steven Rostedt
2005-12-29 1:29 ` Dave Jones
2005-12-29 1:50 ` Keith Owens
2005-12-29 2:39 ` Dave Jones
2006-01-02 15:03 ` Helge Hafting
2006-01-04 5:26 ` Dave Jones
2005-12-30 21:13 ` Marcelo Tosatti
2005-12-31 20:13 ` Andi Kleen
2005-12-29 19:48 ` Steven Rostedt
2005-12-29 21:16 ` Andi Kleen
2006-01-02 8:37 ` Pekka Enberg
2006-01-02 12:45 ` Andi Kleen [this message]
2006-01-02 13:04 ` Pekka J Enberg
2006-01-02 13:56 ` Andi Kleen
2006-01-02 15:09 ` Pekka J Enberg
2006-01-02 15:46 ` Jörn Engel
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=200601021345.44843.ak@suse.de \
--to=ak@suse.de \
--cc=dada1@cosmosbay.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=penberg@cs.helsinki.fi \
--cc=vda@ilport.com.ua \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox