From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933557AbXBXUka (ORCPT ); Sat, 24 Feb 2007 15:40:30 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S933556AbXBXUka (ORCPT ); Sat, 24 Feb 2007 15:40:30 -0500 Received: from lazybastard.de ([212.112.238.170]:38409 "EHLO longford.lazybastard.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933559AbXBXUka (ORCPT ); Sat, 24 Feb 2007 15:40:30 -0500 Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 19:33:23 +0000 From: =?utf-8?B?SsO2cm4=?= Engel To: Christoph Lameter Cc: David Miller , kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com, andi@firstfloor.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org Subject: Re: SLUB: The unqueued Slab allocator Message-ID: <20070224193322.GA17276@lazybastard.org> References: <20070224142835.4c7a3207.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20070223.215439.92580943.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, 24 February 2007 09:32:49 -0800, Christoph Lameter wrote: > > If that is a problem for particular object pools then we may be able to > except those from the merging. How much of a gain is the merging anyway? Once you start having explicit whitelists or blacklists of pools that can be merged, one can start to wonder if the result is worth the effort. Jörn -- Joern's library part 6: http://www.gzip.org/zlib/feldspar.html