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

Path	csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!aioe.org!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From	David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Newsgroups	linux.kernel
Subject	Re: SLUB vs SLAB allocator with respect to 3.x and 4.x kernels
Date	Thu, 27 Aug 2015 23:10:03 +0200
Message-ID	<q2cAP-7GI-35@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	<q26lI-72W-29@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Original-To	Navin Parakkal <navinp1912@gmail.com>
Dkim-Signature	v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:message-id:references :user-agent:mime-version:content-type; bh=JEUqwTl3vqbmjcbuUUUSFr4BiJSkVInIQlQdk5e0wDc=; b=dDNh6Rac7N4dATzmOSlsdEVMArsK145vwTbwTZfvQZUVH91RwjrxjDlrmUmVrxqQYy MxcIOtdmmeGFZouGdNF8/41mwfDCyvdaUxP/zWUaeEYQHw3Xxvg3or509VvKivDQ3eeo 4NVubM4SQJzbTz5fhjZ8tv78hzUvN+Ts25QI3opYlDUbpyIJv+z64wfyESwRYo2jTIsw yaUjPkn6JDbHzy0iTA84xuMoe25ShgZelOUmnhress0sgBNeQBPxH9tKBil/xrjTVgo4 /KQbq8NnJw0MpgIq1LCOP79tvsofwE1MgAsBbU3sFGtOLG5Xm+wITr0Mm/EPJ6ig9+lq V6hw==
X-Google-Dkim-Signature	v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:message-id :references:user-agent:mime-version:content-type; bh=JEUqwTl3vqbmjcbuUUUSFr4BiJSkVInIQlQdk5e0wDc=; b=AP5AAGcfIJj16F7OSV4H0ufZV9YN5UUZuea2rldpvqKdKNSRVXN8/O0YJftu0cfXqT So4hhkU4XmxBmvyseYlD/dIAeBpnKO1IeH/ohBW+xBQq3U6ltYuyE1V1baY6UNeWigYE ys0Awasp2OjNPyRSEDikkqzDGUY+O2nV2aRcnXdbjpCq/AzY0hqZa4VbZ3468Syy1+MO TMmQP6vf9f9zYGtqrWXVxlFG05VU7rMZhs+zbpp8gjWj/oM6nfKze7zZzBVePBSM6oHT YY1sgTdHgTzlB7y17/czBM0Pl7TAH+MNovOaZ5BcldYzUhVK1TOaumHKvzPSOvSVucla 4Shw==
X-Gm-Message-State	ALoCoQnXdRefDPEQlQGBoCJ1e+d/ySYDr0/91TBz/KP3HgRZ4RO6hir6XdwstcoQi9f/0tJUFLVY
X-Received	by 10.68.88.69 with SMTP id be5mr9563013pbb.105.1440709576756; Thu, 27 Aug 2015 14:06:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-X-Sender	rientjes@chino.kir.corp.google.com
User-Agent	Alpine 2.10 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14)
MIME-Version	1.0
Content-Type	TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender	robomod@news.nic.it
List-ID	<linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved	robomod@news.nic.it
Lines	22
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway
X-Original-Cc	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
X-Original-Date	Thu, 27 Aug 2015 14:06:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-Message-ID	<alpine.DEB.2.10.1508271404240.30543@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
X-Original-References	<CAA=4087iJxxmZwJcsedMw_PRj-_iN3pSt63v5KgStX07L5He-w@mail.gmail.com>
X-Original-Sender	linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Xref	csiph.com linux.kernel:1214830

Show key headers only | 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