Re: Mainline kernel OLTP performance update

[Nick Piggin]

On Thursday 15 January 2009 13:04:31 Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 18:21:47 -0700 Matthew Wilcox <matthew@xxxxxx> wrote:

> > SLUB would have had a huge negative effect if we were using it -- on the
> > order of 7% iirc.  SLQB is at least performance-neutral with SLAB.
>
> We really need to unblock that problem somehow.  I assume that
> enterprise distros are shipping slab?

SLES11 will ship with SLAB, FWIW. As I said in the SLQB thread, this was
not due to my input. But I think it was probably the right choice to make
in that situation.

The biggest problem with SLAB for SGI I think is alien caches bloating the
kmem cache footprint to many GB each on their huge systems, but SLAB has a
parameter to turn off alien caches anyway so I think that is a reasonable
workaround.

Given the OLTP regression, and also I'd hate to have to deal with even
more reports of people's order-N allocations failing... basically with the
regression potential there, I don't think there was a compelling case
found to use SLUB (ie. where does it actually help?).

I'm going to propose to try to unblock the problem by asking to merge SLQB
with a plan to end up picking just one general allocator (and SLOB).

Given that SLAB and SLUB are fairly mature, I wonder what you'd think of
taking SLQB into -mm and making it the default there for a while, to see
if anybody reports a problem?

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/