[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1191522372.5574.39.camel@lappy>
Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2007 20:26:12 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...ux.intel.com>,
Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Mel Gorman <mel@...net.ie>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
David Chinner <dgc@....com>, Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: SLUB performance regression vs SLAB
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@....com> 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@...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