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

[Andrew Morton]

On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 09:06:46 -0700 (PDT) Christoph Lameter <clameter@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> 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.

I've frequently wondered why we don't just create more caches for kmalloc:
make it denser than each-power-of-2-plus-a-few-others-in-between.

I assume the tradeoff here is better packing versus having a ridiculous
number of caches.  Is there any other cost?

Because even having 1024 caches wouldn't consume a terrible amount of
memory and I bet it would result in aggregate savings.

Of course, a scheme which creates kmalloc caches on-demand would be better,
but that would kill our compile-time cache selection, I suspect.
-
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/