[lkml]   [2008]   [Apr]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 3/6] compcache: TLSF Allocator interface
    On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 12:26 AM, Peter Zijlstra <> wrote:

    > Yeah, it also suffers from a horrible coding style, can use excessive
    > amounts of vmalloc space, isn't hooked into the reclaim process as an
    > allocator should be and has a severe lack of per-cpu data making it a
    > pretty big bottleneck on anything with more than a few cores.
    > Now, it might be needed, might work better, and the scalability issue
    > might not be a problem when used for swap, but still, you don't treat
    > any of these points in your changelog.

    I will add these points to changelog.
    This project is meant for small systems only. So, scalability is not an issue.

    > FWIW, please split up the patches in a sane way. This series looks like
    > it wants to be 2 or 3 patches. The first introducing all of TLSF (this
    > split per file is horrible). The second doing all of the block device,
    > and a possible last doing documentation and such.

    Ok. I will resend with better splitting.

    > Also, how bad was kmalloc() compared to this TLSF, we need numbers :-)

    I have posted performance numbers at:

    Data Summary:

    Peak Memory Usage:

    * Ideal: 24947 KB
    * TLSF: 25377 KB
    * KMalloc(SLUB): 36483 KB

    So, KMalloc uses ~43% more memory than TLSF!

    - Nitin

     \ /
      Last update: 2008-04-03 19:27    [W:0.051 / U:3.208 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site