On Sat, 2008-01-05 at 18:21 +0200, Pekka J Enberg wrote: > Hi Matt, > > On Thu, 3 Jan 2008, Matt Mackall wrote: > > > SLUB can align these without a 2 byte > > > overhead. In some configurations this results in SLUB using even less > > > memory than SLOB. See f.e. Pekka's test at > > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=118405559214029&w=2 > > > > Available memory after boot is not a particularly stable measurement and > > not valid if there's memory pressure. At any rate, I wasn't able to > > reproduce this. > > So, I have this silly memory profiler derived from the kleak patches by > the relayfs people and would love to try it out on an embedded workload > where SLUB memory footprint is terrible. Any suggestions?
Or you could use this (which is a bit broken on modern kernels, but provides lots of interesting detail): http://lwn.net/Articles/124374/ I don't have any particular "terrible" workloads for SLUB. But my attempts to simply boot with all three allocators to init=/bin/bash in, say, lguest show a fair margin for SLOB. -- Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
