Re: [RFC PATCH] Implement slub fastpath with sequence number

[Nick Piggin]

On Wednesday 12 March 2008 01:45, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> Hi Nick,
>
> On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 11:41 AM, Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 
wrote:
> >  Wow. I applaud the effort to micro optimise things ;)
> >
> >  But I hope this doesn't get merged until macro-regressions in SLUB
> >  are verified to be fixed. It's pretty clear that SLUB's problem is
> >  not fastpath performance, so I think this would be premature
> >  optimisation.
>
> What regressions are you referring to? The SLAB_HWCACHE_ALIGN
> regression patch you sent is being merged. What else?

The oracle/tpcc one I don't know if it has been fixed?


> And FWIW, I don't like the patch because it makes the code very hairy.
> But I don't see why we shouldn't merge SLUB fast-path optimizations if
> they're clean and you have the numbers to show it's a gain even if
> there are other remaining regressions.

I'm talking about this patch specifically though. It makes it much
harder to work with.

--
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/