lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Nov]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: lockdep complaints in slab allocator
    On Tue, 24 Nov 2009, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

    > > slqb still has a 5-10% performance regression compared to slab for
    > > benchmarks such as netperf TCP_RR on machines with high cpu counts,
    > > forcing that type of regression isn't acceptable.
    >
    > Having _4_ slab allocators is equally unacceptable.
    >

    So you just advocated to merging slqb so that it gets more testing and
    development, and then use its inclusion in a statistic to say we should
    remove others solely because the space is too cluttered?

    We use slab partially because the regression in slub was too severe for
    some of our benchmarks, and while CONFIG_SLUB may be the kernel default
    there are still distros that use slab as the default as well. We cannot
    simply remove an allocator that is superior to others because it is old or
    has increased complexity.

    I'd suggest looking at how widely used slob is and whether it has a
    significant advantage over slub. We'd then have two allocators for
    specialized workloads (and slub is much better for diagnostics) and one in
    development.


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2009-11-24 22:25    [W:3.907 / U:0.020 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site