[lkml]   [2007]   [Feb]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: SLUB: The unqueued Slab allocator
On Thu, 22 Feb 2007, Pekka Enberg wrote:

> On 2/22/07, Christoph Lameter <> wrote:
> > This is a new slab allocator which was motivated by the complexity of the
> > existing code in mm/slab.c. It attempts to address a variety of concerns
> > with the existing implementation.
> So do you want to add a new allocator or replace slab?

Add. The performance and quality is not comparable to SLAB at this point.

> On 2/22/07, Christoph Lameter <> wrote:
> > B. Storage overhead of object queues
> Does this make sense for non-NUMA too? If not, can we disable the
> queues for NUMA in current slab?

Given the locking scheme in the current slab you cannot do that. Otherwise
there will be a single lock taken for every operation limiting performace

> On 2/22/07, Christoph Lameter <> wrote:
> > C. SLAB metadata overhead
> Can be done for the current slab code too, no?

The per slab metadata of the SLAB does not fit into the page_struct.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2007-02-22 16:17    [W:0.120 / U:0.060 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site