lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Aug]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: 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.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-08-27 23:21    [W:0.039 / U:0.640 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site