lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Jul]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [RFC][PATCH] Check write to slab memory which freed already using mudflap
    On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 02:04:53AM -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
    > 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?

    Just had a hiccup with testing in the last cycle, so we decided
    not to merge it this time. I hope next window.


    > 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.

    I did do various netperf runs, but I can't remember whether I tried
    to reproduce your test case with SLQB. I'll try ;)

    I don't think there are any known performance regressions for SLQB
    versus others, but OTOH I don't think it has been widely performance
    tested (I don't think many people performance test -next).



    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2009-07-10 11:21    [W:0.022 / U:0.140 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site