Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 27 Aug 2015 14:06:15 -0700 (PDT) | From | David Rientjes <> | Subject | Re: SLUB vs SLAB allocator with respect to 3.x and 4.x kernels |
| |
On Thu, 27 Aug 2015, Navin Parakkal wrote:
> Hi, > > I found that in many worst case scenarios like fragmention of > allocator , slub performs well than slab. > I also noticed that Centos /Ubuntu etc switched to SLUB but SLES > still uses SLAB in the default image. > > Any particular reason where SLAB is the choice ? >
Slab doesn't have a reliance on high-order allocations for performance where fragmentation is a problem, it can use a smaller footprint due to slub's per-cpu partial slabs, it is faster on some networking round-robin benchmarks on nUMA machines, and it is has less impact when implementing full kmem accounting for memcg.
| |