[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.0907100158090.13880@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 02:04:53 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
cc: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
Janboe Ye <yuan-bo.ye@...orola.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, vegard.nossum@...il.com,
graydon@...hat.com, fche@...hat.com, Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] Check write to slab memory which freed already
using mudflap
On Fri, 10 Jul 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > SLAB is (slowly) going away so you might want to port this to SLUB
> > as well so we can merge both.
>
> and SLQB which will replace both? :-/
>
I'm not sure what the status of slqb is, although I would have expected it
to have been pushed for inclusion in 2.6.31 as a slab allocator
alternative. Nick, any forecast for inclusion?
SLUB has a pretty noticeable performance degradation on benchmarks such as
netperf TCP_RR with high numbers of threads (see my post about it:
http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=123839191416472). CONFIG_SLAB is the
optimal configuration for workloads that share similiar slab thrashing
patterns (which my patchset dealt with in an indirect way and yet still
didn't match slab's performance). I haven't yet seen data that suggests
anything other than CONFIG_SLAB has parity with such a benchmark.
--
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