Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1214810

Re: SLUB vs SLAB allocator with respect to 3.x and 4.x kernels

Show all headers | View raw

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] - view raw

On 2015-08-27 10:26, Navin Parakkal wrote:
> Hi,
>
>   I  found that in many worst case scenarios like fragmention of
> allocator , slub performs well than slab.
>    I also noticed that Centos /Ubuntu etc switched to SLUB but SLES
> still uses SLAB in the default image.
>
> Any particular reason where SLAB is the choice ?
>
>
> I ask this since i find SLUB to be the default choice since 2.6.23 as
> per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SLUB_(software)
>
IIRC, SLUB isn't available/reliable on some arches (that and in some 
setups, the worst case scenarios are likely to never happen (for 
example, a machine with 1T of RAM that get's rebooted daily isn't likely 
to have significant issues with memory fragmentation)).

SLES probably hasn't switched because they're an enterprise distro, 
which in turn means changing as little as possible when updating.

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

SLUB vs SLAB allocator with respect to 3.x and 4.x kernels Navin Parakkal <navinp1912@gmail.com> - 2015-08-27 16:30 +0200
  Re: SLUB vs SLAB allocator with respect to 3.x and 4.x kernels Austin S Hemmelgarn <ahferroin7@gmail.com> - 2015-08-27 21:50 +0200
  Re: SLUB vs SLAB allocator with respect to 3.x and 4.x kernels David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com> - 2015-08-27 23:10 +0200

csiph-web