linux-kernel - Re: SLUB performance regression vs SLAB

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0710041411060.12779@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
Date:	Thu, 4 Oct 2007 14:11:53 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
To:	Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>
cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, arjan@...radead.org,
	willy@...ux.intel.com, nickpiggin@...oo.com.au, hch@....de,
	mel@...net.ie, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dgc@....com, jens.axboe@...cle.com
Subject: Re: SLUB performance regression vs SLAB

On Thu, 4 Oct 2007, Matthew Wilcox wrote:

> Yet here we stand.  Christoph is aggressively trying to get slab removed
> from the tree.  There is a testcase which shows slub performing worse
> than slab.  It's not my fault I can't publish it.  And just because I
> can't publish it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
> 
> Slab needs to not get removed until slub is as good a performer on this
> benchmark.

I agree with this .... SLAB will stay until we have worked through all the 
performance issues.

-
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/