Re: [patch 09/10] Remove the SLOB allocator for 2.6.23

On Mon, 9 Jul 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:

A reason for retaining slob would be that it has some O(n) memory saving
due to better packing, etc. Indeed that was the reason for merging it in
the first place. If slob no longer retains that advantage (wrt slub) then
we no longer need it.

SLOB contains several significant O(1) and also O(n) memory savings that
are so far impossible-by-design for SLUB. They are: slab external
fragmentation is significantly reduced; kmalloc internal fragmentation is
significantly reduced; order of magnitude smaller kmem_cache data type;
order of magnitude less code...

Well that is only true for kmalloc objects < PAGE_SIZE and to some extend
offset by the need to keep per object data in SLUB. 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. SLUB has less wastage
there than SLAB since it can fit power of two object tightly into a slab
instead of having to place additional control information there like SLAB.

O(n) memory savings? What is that?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Relevant Pages

  • [GIT PULL] SLAB updates for 2.6.30-rc1
    ... Please pull the latest SLAB three which contains the following changes: ... Assorted cleanups to SLUB and SLOB ... move min_partial to struct kmem_cache ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
  • Re: [patch 09/10] Remove the SLOB allocator for 2.6.23
    ... If slob no longer retains that advantage (wrt slub) then ... But yes the power of two caches are a necessary design feature of SLAB/SLUB that allows Ooperations of kmalloc slabs which in turns causes memory wastage because of rounding of the alloc to the next power of two. ... there than SLAB since it can fit power of two object tightly into a slab instead of having to place additional control information there like SLAB. ... which is higher with SLUB than with SLOB in our tests. ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
  • Re: [GIT PULL] mm: Remove slab destructors from kmem_cache_create().
    ... BUGs for both slab and slub, ... SLOB of course did support destructors, ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
  • Re: [GIT PULL] mm: Remove slab destructors from kmem_cache_create().
    ... BUGs for both slab and slub, ... SLOB of course did support destructors, ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
  • Re: [patch] SLQB slab allocator
    ... obviously as different from SLUB as SLUB is from SLAB (apart from peripheral ... Now, if that means we have to replace SLUB with SLQB, I am fine ... so sure adding a completely separate allocator is the way to get ...
    (Linux-Kernel)