Re: SLUB: The unqueued Slab allocator

Christoph Lameter
2007-02-22T18:42:28Z

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.