Re: Major regression on hackbench with SLUB (more numbers)

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Fri, 2007-12-21 at 23:16 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-12-21 at 14:11 -0800, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > On Fri, 21 Dec 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > 
> > > If you aren't even motivated to fix the problems that have been reported, 
> > > then SLUB isn't even a _potential_ solution, it's purely a problem, and 
> > > since I am not IN THE LEAST interested in having three different 
> > > allocators around, SLUB is going to get axed.
> > 
> > Not motivated? I have analyzed the problem in detail and when it comes 
> > down to it  there is not much impact that I can see in real life 
> > applications. I have always responded to the regression reported also via 
> > TPC-C. 
> 
> But you are dismissing the hackbench regression, which is not a small
> one. It runs an astonishing 10x slower.
> 

BTW, does /proc/slabinfo exist again? I thought we set that as a
requirement for SLUB to be the default and a full replacement for SLAB.


--
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/