[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <0100016a2b7b515b-2a0a4fab-6c9d-4eeb-a0c8-d3fffbf64e55-000000@email.amazonses.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2019 13:27:43 +0000
From: Christopher Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
To: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <netdev@...uer.com>
cc: Pekka Enberg <penberg@....fi>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
"Tobin C. Harding" <me@...in.cc>, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
"Tobin C. Harding" <tobin@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Qian Cai <cai@....pw>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/1] mm: Remove the SLAB allocator
On Wed, 17 Apr 2019, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
> I do think SLUB have a number of pathological cases where SLAB is
> faster. If was significantly more difficult to get good bulk-free
> performance for SLUB. SLUB is only fast as long as objects belong to
> the same page. To get good bulk-free performance if objects are
> "mixed", I coded this[1] way-too-complex fast-path code to counter
> act this (joined work with Alex Duyck).
Right. SLUB usually compensates for that with superior allocation
performance.
> > It's, of course, worth thinking about other pathological cases too.
> > Workloads that cause large allocations is one. Workloads that cause lots
> > of slab cache shrinking is another.
>
> I also worry about long uptimes when SLUB objects/pages gets too
> fragmented... as I said SLUB is only efficient when objects are
> returned to the same page, while SLAB is not.
??? Why would SLUB pages get more fragmented? SLUB has fragmentation
prevention methods that SLAB does not have.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists