On Wed, 21 Mar 2012, Eric Dumazet wrote: > On Wed, 2012-03-21 at 12:54 -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote: > > On Wed, 21 Mar 2012, Eric Dumazet wrote: > > > > > On Wed, 2012-03-21 at 10:03 -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote: > > > > On Wed, 21 Mar 2012, Eric Dumazet wrote: > > > > > > > > > Creating a dedicated cache for few objects ? Thats a lot of overhead, at > > > > > least for SLAB (no merges of caches) > > > > > > > > Its some overhead for SLAB (a lot is what? If you tune down the per cpu > > > > caches it should be a couple of pages) but its none for SLUB. > > > > > > SLAB overhead per cache is O(CPUS * nr_node_ids) (unless alien caches > > > are disabled) > > > > nr_node_ids==2 in the standard case these days. Alien caches are minimal. > > > Thats not true. Some machines use lots of nodes (fake nodes) for various > reasons. Which is not a typical use case. > And they cant disable alien caches for performance reasons. Ok then lets genericize the slub merge in some form so that it works for all slab allocators. -- 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>