[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20091124214814.GK6831@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 13:48:14 -0800
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
Subject: Re: lockdep complaints in slab allocator
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 10:12:30PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-11-24 at 13:03 -0800, David Rientjes wrote:
> > On Tue, 24 Nov 2009, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> > > Merge SLQB and rm mm/sl[ua]b.c include/linux/sl[ua]b.h for .33-rc1
> > >
> >
> > slqb still has a 5-10% performance regression compared to slab for
> > benchmarks such as netperf TCP_RR on machines with high cpu counts,
> > forcing that type of regression isn't acceptable.
>
> Having _4_ slab allocators is equally unacceptable.
I completely agree. We need at least ten. ;-)
Thanx, Paul
--
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