[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200709111459.10148.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 14:59:09 +1000
From: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
To: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
Cc: "Zhang, Yanmin" <yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, mingo@...e.hu,
Mel Gorman <mel@...net.ie>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: tbench regression - Why process scheduler has impact on tbench and why small per-cpu slab (SLUB) cache creates the scenario?
On Wednesday 12 September 2007 06:19, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Sep 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > The impression I got at vm meeting was that SLUB was good to go :(
>
> Its not? I have had Intel test this thoroughly and they assured me that it
> is up to SLAB. This particular case is an synthetic tests for a PAGE_SIZE
> alloc and SLUB was not optimized for that case because PAGE_SIZEd
> allocations should be handled by the page allocators. Quicklists were
> introduced for the explicit purpose to get these messy page sized cases
> out of the slab allocators.
I heard from one person at KS and one person here that it is not. If they're
simply missing some patch that's in -mm, and there is no longer a SLUB vs
SLAB regression when using equivalent page allocation order, then that's
fine.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists