[lkml]   [2019]   [Apr]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/1] mm: Remove the SLAB allocator

On 4/11/19 10:55 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> Please please have it more rigorous then what happened when SLUB was
> forced to become a default

This is the hard part.

Even if you are able to show that SLUB is as fast as SLAB for all the
benchmarks you run, there's bound to be that one workload where SLUB
regresses. You will then have people complaining about that (rightly so)
and you're again stuck with two allocators.

To move forward, I think we should look at possible *pathological* cases
where we think SLAB might have an advantage. For example, SLUB had much
more difficulties with remote CPU frees than SLAB. Now I don't know if
this is the case, but it should be easy to construct a synthetic
benchmark to measure this.

For example, have a userspace process that does networking, which is
often memory allocation intensive, so that we know that SKBs traverse
between CPUs. You can do this by making sure that the NIC queues are
mapped to CPU N (so that network softirqs have to run on that CPU) but
the process is pinned to CPU M.

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.

- Pekka

 \ /
  Last update: 2019-04-11 10:28    [W:0.084 / U:7.736 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site