From owner-freebsd-hackers Sun Jan 26 13:38:32 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id NAA26060 for hackers-outgoing; Sun, 26 Jan 1997 13:38:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from phaeton.artisoft.com (phaeton.Artisoft.COM [198.17.250.211]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA26055 for ; Sun, 26 Jan 1997 13:38:29 -0800 (PST) Received: (from terry@localhost) by phaeton.artisoft.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) id OAA02324; Sun, 26 Jan 1997 14:18:45 -0700 From: Terry Lambert Message-Id: <199701262118.OAA02324@phaeton.artisoft.com> Subject: Re: SLAB stuff, and applications to current net code (fwd) To: dg@root.com Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 14:18:45 -0700 (MST) Cc: michaelh@cet.co.jp, proff@suburbia.net, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: <199701261235.EAA06772@root.com> from "David Greenman" at Jan 26, 97 04:35:36 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] 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 > 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. Are you looking at the TLB overhead for SLAB? Technically, the FreeBSD allocator meets the interface criteria for SLAB, though it's not SLAB (as you point out, it's not type-stable). Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.