From owner-freebsd-hackers Sun Jan 26 04:58:09 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id EAA06543 for hackers-outgoing; Sun, 26 Jan 1997 04:58:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from pdx1.world.net (pdx1.world.net [192.243.32.18]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id EAA06537 for ; Sun, 26 Jan 1997 04:58:07 -0800 (PST) From: proff@suburbia.net Received: from suburbia.net (suburbia.net [203.4.184.1]) by pdx1.world.net (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id EAA23753 for ; Sun, 26 Jan 1997 04:59:21 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 19510 invoked by uid 110); 26 Jan 1997 12:57:47 -0000 Message-ID: <19970126125747.19508.qmail@suburbia.net> Subject: Re: SLAB stuff, and applications to current net code (fwd) In-Reply-To: <199701261235.EAA06772@root.com> from David Greenman at "Jan 26, 97 04:35:36 am" To: dg@root.com Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 23:57:47 +1100 (EST) Cc: hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL28 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > >I not sure how much benefit the SLAB allocator would offer over what we > >have. There's some extra overhead in maintaining a SLAB. > > > >BTW, SLAB is used in Solaris. > > The allocator in BSD is designed to be as fast as possible and trades > space efficiency for performance. I'm very skeptical that a SLAB allocator > would be any faster than the current allocation algorithm, although it > would likely be more space efficient. > > -DG > > David Greenman > Core-team/Principal Architect, The FreeBSD Project > I presume the idea is that the cache efficiency of small allocations would be substantially improved? Cheers, Julian