[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1210130252030.7462@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2012 02:54:49 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To: Ezequiel Garcia <elezegarcia@...il.com>
cc: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-mm@...ck.org, Tim Bird <tim.bird@...sony.com>,
celinux-dev@...ts.celinuxforum.org
Subject: Re: [Q] Default SLAB allocator
On Fri, 12 Oct 2012, Ezequiel Garcia wrote:
> >> SLUB is a non-starter for us and incurs a >10% performance degradation in
> >> netperf TCP_RR.
> >
>
> Where are you seeing that?
>
In my benchmarking results.
> Notice that many defconfigs are for embedded devices,
> and many of them say "use SLAB"; I wonder if that's right.
>
If a device doesn't require the smallest memory footprint possible (SLOB)
then SLAB is the right choice when there's a limited amount of memory;
SLUB requires higher order pages for the best performance (on my desktop
system running with CONFIG_SLUB, over 50% of the slab caches default to be
high order).
> Is there any intention to replace SLAB by SLUB?
There may be an intent, but it'll be nacked as long as there's a
performance degradation.
> In that case it could make sense to change defconfigs, although
> it wouldn't be based on any actual tests.
>
Um, you can't just go changing defconfigs without doing some due diligence
in ensuring it won't be deterimental for those users.
--
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