Re: [POLL] SLAB : Are the 32 and 192 bytes caches really usefull onx86_64 machines ?

[Pekka J Enberg]

On Mon, 2 Jan 2006, Andi Kleen wrote:
> I wasn't proposing fully dynamic slabs, just a better default set
> of slabs based on real measurements instead of handwaving (like
> the power of two slabs seemed to have been generated). With separate
> sets for 32bit and 64bit. 
> 
> Also the goal wouldn't be better performance, but just less waste of memory.
> 
> I suspect such a move could save much more memory on small systems 
> than any of these "make fundamental debugging tools a CONFIG" patches ever.

I misunderstood what you were proposing. Sorry. It makes sense to measure 
it.

			Pekka
-
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/