[lkml]   [2009]   [Jul]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
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:
> 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:0.066 / U:3.840 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site