lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Jul]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [patch 09/10] Remove the SLOB allocator for 2.6.23
    On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 09:06:46 -0700 (PDT) Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com> wrote:

    > But yes the power of
    > two caches are a necessary design feature of SLAB/SLUB that allows O(1)
    > operations of kmalloc slabs which in turns causes memory wastage because
    > of rounding of the alloc to the next power of two.

    I've frequently wondered why we don't just create more caches for kmalloc:
    make it denser than each-power-of-2-plus-a-few-others-in-between.

    I assume the tradeoff here is better packing versus having a ridiculous
    number of caches. Is there any other cost?

    Because even having 1024 caches wouldn't consume a terrible amount of
    memory and I bet it would result in aggregate savings.

    Of course, a scheme which creates kmalloc caches on-demand would be better,
    but that would kill our compile-time cache selection, I suspect.
    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2007-07-09 18:55    [W:5.849 / U:0.332 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site