Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 19 Feb 2009 21:51:48 +0900 | Subject | Re: [patch] SLQB slab allocator (try 2) | From | KOSAKI Motohiro <> |
| |
2009/2/19 Pekka Enberg <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi>: > On Wed, 2009-02-18 at 09:48 +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: >> > > In addition, if pekka patch (SLAB_LIMIT = 8K) run on ia64, 16K allocation >> > > always fallback to page allocator and using 64K (4 times memory consumption!). >> > >> > Yes, correct, but SLUB does that already by passing all allocations over >> > 4K to the page allocator. >> >> hmhm >> OK. my mail was pointless. >> >> but why? In my understanding, slab framework mainly exist for efficient >> sub-page allocation. >> the fallbacking of 4K allocation in 64K page-sized architecture seems >> inefficient. > > I don't think any of the slab allocators are known for memory > efficiency. That said, the original patch description sums up the > rationale for page allocator pass-through: > > http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commitdiff;h=aadb4bc4a1f9108c1d0fbd121827c936c2ed4217 > > Interesting enough, there seems to be some performance gain from it as > well as seen by Mel Gorman's recent slab allocator benchmarks.
Honestly, I'm bit confusing. above url's patch use PAGE_SIZE, but not 4K nor architecture independent value. Your 4K mean PAGE_SIZE?
| |