[lkml]   [2011]   [Jul]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] slub: reduce overhead of slub_debug
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 10:21 PM, David Miller <> wrote:
> From: Christoph Lameter <>
> Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2011 14:12:37 -0500 (CDT)
>> On Thu, 7 Jul 2011, Pekka Enberg wrote:
>>> On Thu, 7 Jul 2011, Pekka Enberg wrote:
>>> > > Looks good to me. Christoph, David, ?
>>> On Thu, 2011-07-07 at 13:17 -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote:
>>> > The reason debug code is there is because it is useless overhead typically
>>> > not needed. There is no point in optimizing the code that is not run in
>>> > production environments unless there are gross performance issues that
>>> > make debugging difficult. A performance patch for debugging would have to
>>> > cause significant performance improvements. This patch does not do that
>>> > nor was there such an issue to be addressed in the first place.
>>> Is there something technically wrong with the patch? Quoting the patch
>>> email:
>>>   (Compiling some project with different options)
>>>                                  make -j12    make clean
>>>   slub_debug disabled:             1m 27s       1.2 s
>>>   slub_debug enabled:              1m 46s       7.6 s
>>>   slub_debug enabled + this patch: 1m 33s       3.2 s
>>>   check_bytes still shows up high, but not always at the top.
>>> That's significant enough speedup for me!
>> Ok. I had a different set of numbers in mind from earlier posts.
>> The benefit here comes from accessing memory in larger (word) chunks
>> instead of byte wise. This is a form of memscan() with inverse matching.
>> Isnt there an asm optimized version that can do this much better (there is
>> one for memscan())? Optimizing this in core code by codeing something as
>> generic as that is not that good since the arch code can deliver better
>> performance and it seems that this is functionality that could be useful
>> elsewhere.
> You're being so unreasonable, just let the optimization in, refine it
> with follow-on patches.

I applied the patch. I think a follow up patch that moves the function
to lib/string.c with proper generic name would be in order. Thanks!
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2011-07-07 21:51    [W:0.059 / U:7.908 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site