Re: SLUB performance regression vs SLAB
From: Peter Zijlstra
Date: Thu Oct 04 2007 - 14:32:21 EST
On Thu, 2007-10-04 at 10:50 -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Oct 2007 10:38:15 -0700 (PDT)
> Christoph Lameter <clameter@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Yeah the fastpath vs. slow path is not the issue as Siddha and I
> > concluded earlier. Seems that we are mainly seeing cacheline bouncing
> > due to two cpus accessing meta data in the same page struct. The
> > patches in MM that are scheduled to be merged for .24 address
> Ok every time something says anything not 100% positive about SLUB you
> come back with "but it's fixed in the next patch set"... *every time*.
> To be honest, to me that sounds that SLUB isn't ready for prime time
> yet, or at least not ready to be the only one in town...
> The day that the answer is "the kernel.org slub is fixing all the
> issues" is when it's ready..
Arjan, to be honest, there has been some confusion on _what_ code has
been tested with what results. And with Christoph not able to reproduce
these results locally, it is very hard for him to fix it proper.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/