On Mon, 1 Oct 2007 14:38:55 -0700 (PDT) Christoph Lameter <clameter@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, 1 Oct 2007, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > Do slab and slub use the same underlying page size for each slab? > > SLAB cannot pack objects as dense as SLUB and they have different > algorithm to make the choice of order. Thus the number of objects per slab > may vary between SLAB and SLUB and therefore also the choice of order to > store these objects. > > > Single data point: the CONFIG_SLAB boxes which I have access to here are > > using order-0 for radix_tree_node, so they won't be failing in the way in > > which Peter's machine is. > > Upstream SLUB uses order 0 allocations for the radix tree. OK, that's a relief. > MM varies > because the use of higher order allocs is more loose if the mobility > algorithms are found to be active: > > 2.6.23-rc8: > > Name Objects Objsize Space Slabs/Part/Cpu O/S O %Fr %Ef Flg\ > radix_tree_node 14281 552 9.9M 2432/948/1 7 0 38 79 Ah. So the already-dropped slub-exploit-page-mobility-to-increase-allocation-order.patch was the culprit? - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
