[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1312051550390.7717@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 15:53:35 -0800 (PST)
From: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
cgroups@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 3/8] mm, mempolicy: remove per-process flag
On Thu, 5 Dec 2013, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> Specjbb? What does Java have to do with this?
> Can you run the synthetic in kernel slab benchmark.
>
> Like this one https://lkml.org/lkml/2009/10/13/459
>
We actually carry that in our production kernel and have updated it to
build on 3.11, I'll run it and netperf TCP_RR as well, thanks.
> However, SLAB is still the allocator in use for RHEL which puts some
> importance on still supporting SLAB.
>
Google also uses it exclusively so I'm definitely not saying that since
it's not default that we can ignore it. I haven't seen any performance
regression in removing it, but I'll post the numbers on the slab benchmark
and netperf TCP_RR when I have them.
--
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