From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757434AbXGPHWh (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Jul 2007 03:22:37 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753361AbXGPHWa (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Jul 2007 03:22:30 -0400 Received: from wa-out-1112.google.com ([209.85.146.177]:49003 "EHLO wa-out-1112.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752889AbXGPHW3 (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Jul 2007 03:22:29 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth; b=NPbQ9X7yImf52ge79QvkK/mLQFyuElDDqqFqYaMgAEzY+9G3qodQC/tSuH9FmJMLcPswKZIkaV1C1yKr4bdzCFc6tUHu5iA3+HCo5HX8BrPKMLIYJFnOluxFBaSb60l9Y3VAzwq0sxdLXbKH0Xvt8GZIYn5/9omGQ3mcrS5qEKk= Message-ID: <84144f020707160022p37a2d712g21c3d5c89ed6345d@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 10:22:29 +0300 From: "Pekka Enberg" To: "Nick Piggin" Subject: Re: [PATCH] slob: reduce list scanning Cc: "Matt Mackall" , linux-kernel , akpm@linux-foundation.org, "Christoph Lameter" In-Reply-To: <469B09AB.5010309@yahoo.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20070714055434.GQ11115@waste.org> <469B09AB.5010309@yahoo.com.au> X-Google-Sender-Auth: 89e18d3e1050de26 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 7/16/07, Nick Piggin wrote: > Actually SLOB potentially has some fundamental CPU cache hotness > advantages over the other allocators, for the same reasons as > its space advantages. Because consecutive allocations hit the same cache-hot page regardless of requested size where as SLUB by definition distributes allocations to different pages (some of which may not be hot)?