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

Groups > linux.kernel > #1214830

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

Show all headers | View raw

On Thu, 27 Aug 2015, 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 ?
> 

Slab doesn't have a reliance on high-order allocations for performance 
where fragmentation is a problem, it can use a smaller footprint due to 
slub's per-cpu partial slabs, it is faster on some networking round-robin 
benchmarks on nUMA machines, and it is has less impact when implementing 
full kmem accounting for memcg.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous 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