From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+w=401wt.eu-S1754496AbZBCMB4@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1754496AbZBCMB4 (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Tue, 3 Feb 2009 07:01:56 -0500
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754184AbZBCMBp
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing>);
	Tue, 3 Feb 2009 07:01:45 -0500
Received: from gir.skynet.ie ([193.1.99.77]:60223 "EHLO gir.skynet.ie"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1754171AbZBCMBo (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 3 Feb 2009 07:01:44 -0500
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 12:01:39 +0000
From: Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie>
To: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
Cc: Pekka Enberg <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi>, Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>,
       Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
       Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
       Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
       Lin Ming <ming.m.lin@intel.com>,
       "Zhang, Yanmin" <yanmin_zhang@linux.intel.com>,
       Christoph Lameter <cl@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [patch] SLQB slab allocator (try 2)
Message-ID: <20090203120139.GM9840@csn.ul.ie>
References: <20090123154653.GA14517@wotan.suse.de> <200902032136.26022.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> <20090203112852.GJ9840@csn.ul.ie> <200902032250.55968.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <200902032250.55968.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17+20080114 (2008-01-14)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Tue, Feb 03, 2009 at 10:50:54PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> On Tuesday 03 February 2009 22:28:52 Mel Gorman wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 03, 2009 at 09:36:24PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> 
> > > I'd be interested to see how slub performs if booted with
> > > slub_min_objects=1 (which should give similar order pages to SLAB and
> > > SLQB).
> >
> > Just to clarify on this last point, do you mean slub_max_order=0 to
> > force order-0 allocations in SLUB?
> 
> Hmm... I think slub_min_objects=1 should also do basically the same.
> Actually slub_min_object=1 and slub_max_order=1 should get closest I
> think.
> 

I'm going with slub_min_objects=1 and slub_max_order=0. A quick glance
of the source shows the calculation as

        for (order = max(min_order,
                                fls(min_objects * size - 1) - PAGE_SHIFT);
                        order <= max_order; order++) {

so the max_order is inclusive not exclusive. This will force the order-0
allocations I think you are looking for.

-- 
Mel Gorman
Part-time Phd Student                          Linux Technology Center
University of Limerick                         IBM Dublin Software Lab