On Mon, 1 Aug 2011, David Rientjes wrote: > On Mon, 1 Aug 2011, Pekka Enberg wrote: > > > Btw, I haven't measured this recently but in my testing, SLAB has > > pretty much always used more memory than SLUB. So 'throwing more > > memory at the problem' is definitely a reasonable approach for SLUB. > > > > Yes, slub _did_ use more memory than slab until the alignment of > struct page. That cost an additional 128MB on each of these 64GB > machines, while the total slab usage on the client machine systemwide is > ~75MB while running netperf TCP_RR with 160 threads. I guess that calculation did not include metadata structures (alien caches and the NR_CPU arrays in kmem_cache) etc? These are particularly costly on SLAB. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>